“They carefully avoided selecting any of the key messages in the speeches or petition (but they put in any odd unconnected grievance they could find). They didn’t interview the organisers, instead just showing a snippet of a song and a truckie tooting.” But the opponents of the rally were no less inclined to conspiracy.”

When the media coverage of the Convoy was so dismally biased, I wasn’t suggesting a conspiracy. No one needs a conspiracy when good old fashioned incompetence will do. I have documented some of the poor media coverage of climate science, and especially ABC coverage, at length.

Indeed, Mark Scott, director of the ABC himself admitted that the ABC is there to help the government. The fact that he thought it was OK to admit that publicly tells you how far the ABC has come from any notion that it is there to serve-the-people.

Who needs a conspiracy?

My issue with the ABC, and some other outlets, is their culture and their dismal standards. No one has to issue an order from above, or conspire to get mostly left-learning journo’s to pull the punches or ignore stories that threaten their favorite party. As I said, ABC radio in Perth found time in its 6pm bulletin to talk about back-burning in Broome, but not to mention that some 600 vehicles, some that had actually driven from Broome, were protesting in Canberra that day. What issue do you suppose West Australian citizens would find more interesting? Fire control, or a historic protest asking for an election?

If 600 vehicles from all over the country had turned up to protest against the Howard Work Choices policy, would the ABC ignore it? Would news headlines read “No confidence convoy suffers small numbers”. If a disparate group of farmers, miners, road freight workers and business people were protesting about Industrial Relations, would the ABC have dismissed them as grumpy “truckies”? (Louise Maher even complained that the Convoy caused no traffic delays, which was an “unexpected inconvenience”, people got to work early, or had to make up other excuses if they slept in. The travesty!). Where were the thanks that the Convoy had taken so much trouble to consider the people of Canberra? Where was the admiration that the Convoy was so well organized?

Would they have repeated the denigrating claim that it was a convoy of no consequence (sometimes without even quoting it as an Albanese special, but rather adopting it as their own home-made-scorn?) Maybe they were disappointed they didn’t think of it first?

That’s what’s so interesting about the Convoy. The ABC, and the Labor Party used to pretend to be considerate about working Australia. They paid lip-service to “respecting” their views. Not any more. They detest, show contempt and look down on them, and they don’t even bother to hide it anymore.

Bob Hawke would have handled it very differently.

Everybody knows a journalist ought to keep their voting intentions out of their reporting — in theory — but they aren’t even trying anymore. And go on, name the ABC journalists who are conservative, or libertarian…

Welcome to the Land of the Endless Conspiracy

At least Christian Kerr acknowledges the real conspiracy theories tossed by the other side. Though he missed that this particular one he quoted backs up my point to the hilt.

Ramon Glazov, ABC "Contributor'

“The ABC’s The Drum website published a 1300-word dissertation hinting at dark links between the rally organizers and US industrialists David and Charles Koch, the alleged bankrollers of the Tea Party movement.”

Dissertation is a flattering word for the Ramon Glazov unresearched speculation, based on desperately tenuous links, no cause and effect connection, and nothing resembling evidence. Christian missed that Glazov can’t substantiate almost everything he says — sure he was at the Convoy launch in Perth that I was at (at least, he has photos). But what kind of “journalist” attends an event in a carpark where he has easy access to the two people he then writes about at length yet doesn’t bother to “interview” either of them (that would be myself and Janet Thompson by the way). Then — with a straight face — he headlines his story… “Unanswered Questions”?

Figure that if you never ask the questions, you’ll never get any answers. (I guess he can reuse this theme every time he wants a “dark” insinuation.)

“Glazov was watching us — it’s a creepy kind of stalkerville piece. We were wandering in a car park. He had 30 minutes to say hello.”

In another lengthy piece (please give him an editor) Glazov even writes about where Janet and I stood, and what we did, while we chatted casually to anyone approaching us — he was watching us — it’s a creepy kind of stalkerville piece. We were wandering in a car park. He had 30 minutes to say hello.

Glazov pronounces all kinds of things about “the people” at the Convoy, but they’re not the people I met at the Convoy, Glazov doesn’t quote anyone directly, and doesn’t name them either. This is what the ABC drum is reduced too… helping the national debate by posting, er, conspiracy theories about people they can’t name and don’t quote, and smearing people they didn’t talk to.

On his EXile US site, Ramon, obsessively lists the clothes these nameless people in Perth were wearing, as well as their age, and what was in their CD collection. As far as I can tell, he could have made the encounters up. Who would know? He met freaks, but off the top of my head, I talked to farmers, a lawyer, the head of the Sydney Mining Club, and an electrical engineer. (Respectively, the Thompsons, James Doogue, Julian Malnic, David Evans). University degrees and self employed were the norm.

Is he paid to write for that extreme leftie US site? He’s come armed with the same anti-Tea-Party ritual points that proved to be fake in the US.

The US government gave blank checks for trillions of dollars to financial institutions with no questions asked. Faced with record setting corruption on a national scale over the last decade, the huge transfer of wealth to insiders by illegal means, with not a single indictment or jail sentence, it’s not surprising that millions of citizens would rise up in protest. Actually, it would be shocking if they didn’t protest. Yet somehow Ramon zips it up in his head, that the Tea-Party are paid astroturfers. Riiiight. Something like a million people marched on Washington (and there are photos to prove it). The idea that any group could pay for that is as wildly wacko conspiratorial as it gets.

But our tax dollars give Glazov full defamatory room to insinuate his comical conspiracies, and whip up hate-speech type material against his enemies. He drags in Koch and Exxon, as if they might have funded the Convoy, but you know, when you have no evidence, anyone can do that.

As it happens, Glazov, and the ABC wouldn’t know a genuine community movement if they were surrounded by one, which in a sense, they both are.

Here’s what a real grassroots team looks like:

Far from being Exxon or Koch funded, I work pro bono. I wrote the Skeptics Handbook with no funding, and received no money or royalty from the Heartland Foundation for it. Why do I do it? It’s like a patriotic duty. Together with most people I’ve met from the Convoy: we can see a trainwreck coming. And given that this government is at record low polls, scraped into government by the thinnest margin ever with the help of what turned out to be a lie, and is trying to bring in the transformative economic change it specifically said it would not do, who needs any conspiracy to suggest the people might not like this?

The only question about the Convoy is to ask: What took you guys so long?

Glazov just needs his medication checked, and some treatment for his compulsive namecalling (it’s spelled “Tea Party”, Ramon) but the ABC editors of The Drum have to answer some hard questions. Did they not notice Glazov smeared people he could have talked too, but didn’t, and yet apparently “interviewed” people he can’t name? Even Green Left Weekly usually do better than that. It’s name-calling graffiti. This is not journalism, it’s vandalism.

Jo, I don’t work for Exxon or the Koch brothers or any right-wing organization. I am a retired senior citizen living in the United States. I feel that what you, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and others are doing is so important that I donate to your blogs as often as I can. I hope that others who feel as I do also contribute. There’s more “sense” in one of your editorials than there is in 1,000 editorials written by CAGW alarmists. Keep up the good work, and thank you.

Reed Coray

REPLY: Reed, and thank you! You are one of my most regular, reliable supporters. And to everyone else, even little amounts count. (If I got just 10c a pageview I’d be earning a good salary. JN)

Ah, there is the difference between journalists who are paid to produce column inches & people who have something to say.
It can be such a tedious waste of time reading the former, ‘though they no doubt imagine there’s a rabble somewhere that likes to read such stuff & needs rousing.

I read that piece of trash early on and commented but true to form most critical comments never make it thru moderation.
Really tho, Jo, you’re being far too circumspect about that filthy piece of non-journalism.

What I find really amusing is that it appears that the harder the left wing wonks at the lamestream media try to sweep the peoples views under the carpet, it only seems to have the following effects:

1) The government politicians get encouraged and continue their childish ridicule of their voters
2) People become genuinely interested in what we have to say
3) People become physically agitated further by these reporters and politicians ignorance and condescending insults
4) The harder it becomes for the annointed ones to understand the people

The longer this goes on the more more detached the people become from their government.

The consequence is failure to govern. After all you cannot manage let alone govern that which you cannot understand.

In short, the harder these guys try to undermine something their brains cannot comprehend, the closer they move the people to an election.

The word conspiracy, is used without knowing its meaning, and labelling groups who oppose so said popular politics and policies.
A great many of the groups read the facts of the policies prior to engaging in protests and comments, so their actions are based on facts from the policies and programs, and they have every right to speak out or protest when thier livelyhood and families or business is under threat, a great many are also A political.
To all those that did the hard yards to Canberra, and are alerting citizens of some truth. A big THANKS to you all.
Each citizen should be educating themselves on every policy and program that affects them and uses tax payers funds.

What seems most frightening is this thing is not a conscious conspiracy, as such, but a culture that endorses a certain way of thinking about things while seeking to marginalise & ridicule all others, dismissing dissent & indeed dissenters.

A conformist agenda enforced by playground tactics of exclusion ( want to be in ‘The’ Gang, or a Loser ?)

Political correctness is but a ridiculous example of such. It actually rots the mind, in a way no overt conspiracy could hope to achieve.

You could take it as a backhanded compliment Jo. If you were not making an impact, they wouldn’t bother trying to smear your credibility as a contributor to this debate.

The ABC has come to represent lazy, mediocre journalism. They have disappeared so far up their own ideological backsides they are failing to see what is coming at them – pending irrelevance and some very inconvenient science (for them). They can keep up the spin and misrepresentation, but in the end it will only appeal to around 10 – 12% of the population, thus ensuring their eventual demise as they alienate potentially 90% of their audience, who will get their information elsewhere.

Ironic is it not, that the ABC is currently running an opinion poll on the question:

In its reporting on politics, the Australian media tend to be:
a) Biased to the right (55%)
b) Biased to the left (38%)
c) Fair and unbiased (8%)

Hardly surprising that 55% of ABC readers think most media has a right-wing bias… clearly only their precious ABC can get it right on the money (ironic choice of words, I know).

Also interesting that the ABC choose such an ambiguous question, rather than cutting to the chase and asking whether readers thought they were biased. In all honesty the question is meaningless, because there are plenty of examples of left-leaning and right-leaning media outlets. The Age and SMH are clearly left-leaning while The Australian is right-leaning… The West is not sure what week it is.

Once again Yes Minister is to the rescue, summing up media bias in a concise minute of laughs:

“”The Australian is right-leaning”" This paper tends to print opinion from both sides and there are many contributors from the very obvious left. The contributions from the other writers more than make up for having to skip a few.

I no longer buy the Financial review because of its occasional unnecessary left commentary but mostly because it is printed by the mob that does the SMH.

I see The Australian as slightly right-of-centre. Likewise the SMH/Age equal and opposite. But that’s just my subjective opinion. Likewise I agree the AFR is needlessly leaning to the left. Their disparaging and incorrect articles about Western Australia also piss me off. Some of the stuff they printed about royalties, for example, is simply wrong. I know this from first hand knowledge. Having said all that, all the abovementioned papers print left- and right-leaning pieces.

I notice (the news is on TV as I write) that the jump race protest is still getting coverage, despite only being a couple handfulls of protestors. Somehow 600 in the convoy got less coverage on the news than this “politically correct” protest. Shame on the MSM.

“”I notice (the news is on TV as I write) that the jump race protest is still getting coverage, despite only being a couple handfulls of protestors. Somehow 600 in the convoy got less coverage on the news than this “politically correct” protest. Shame on the MSM.”"

I saw the item about race jumping and I felt that horses need more protection; an immediate emotional response.

The reality is that these protesters have probably, like most lefties, had a very protected upbringing and never had to face the reality of many long days, weeks, months , years and decades of poorly paid jobs just to support our families. No doubt they later went out clubbing to celebrate their successful protest.

The protesters are therefore ill equipped to “see” the plight of people in the convoy let alone understand or empathise with it.

Considerable savings of taxpayers’ moneys can be effected by the next Government by cutting all funding for ABC’s current affairs and news programs. The ‘journalists’ involved can then seek employment elsewhere and ABC can be left to cover those matters in which it is qualified and competent e.g. cartoons, other kids programs, music, the arts, etc.

Does anyone “publish” comparative data on blog site views in Australia ? If so where do the ABC sites stand? I just ask to try to get some perspective on their relevance in the blogsphere.
It maybe like the US data — when you look at the Real Climate data compared to WUWT , RC is very much an “also ran”. There is just no comparison.

Ross@30; the ABC doesn’t care about traffic since they are on a taxpayer funded stipend; if the ABC were interested in traffic they would have people like Jo writing a regular column; the luvies would go into their teeny little meltdowns and the traffic would be huge; in fact Jo has written a couple of articles for the Drum; check out the comment total.

27 Aug: UK Telegraph: Aussie ‘blokes’ tackle Carbon Cate and the ‘eco warriors’
The carbon tax row has pitted the two faces of modern Australia against each other, writes Bonnie Malkin
Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the planet, and thanks to its relance on coal-fired power, its citizens are the highest per capita emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. The country has recently suffered deadly floods and bush fires attributed to rising global temperatures…
Despite the divisions – and, some argue, misogyny – that it has highlighted in Australian society, Ms Gillard has now staked her credibility on bringing the carbon tax into law.
When her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, dropped his planned carbon emissions trading scheme after failing to get it through parliament, it too spelt the beginning of the end of his leadership.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8726887/Aussie-blokes-tackle-Carbon-Cate-and-the-eco-warriors.html

setting aside Bonnie’s false claims about aussie weather/CAGW etc…

according to Bonnie, the Convoy was “blokes”; “misogyny” could be behind the PM’s unpopularity, and Rudd was ousted cos he FAILED to get an ETS passed!!!!

ABC/SMH and other MSM came up with this meme on Rudd’s ouster but, IF IT WERE TRUE, then Julia Gillard would not have had to promise, before the 2008 election, that there would be NO CARBON TAX under her Government if she was voted in.
Rudd was ousted because he was unpopular according to the polls, and he was unpopular BECAUSE he tried to ram through the ETS.
Gillard’s polling is even worse, BECAUSE she went back on her promise NOT TO INTRODUCE A CARBON TAX.

the MSM can spin all they like, but what is more and more obvious is they are nothing but shills for the bankers and hedge funds and carbon vultures who stand to make a killing from an ETS.
it’s not a fight between leftwing/rightwing, tho some would like to characterise it that way to keep at least some partisans on board the carbon gravy train. let’s not be divided.

Keep up the good work.
Do not let the spoiled brats in the media distract you.
In the US ‘journalism professors’ have been pushing the idea that those who protest AGW are unworthy of attention.
They have talked themselves into thinking that if they just refuse to acknowledge that skeptics and AGW protestors exist, they will simply go away.
The fact is that the AGW community is the group going away.
If your PM thought you were insignificant, she would not hide from you.
I the media really thought you were insignificant they would not ignore you and misrepresent you so studiously.
Keep it up. Do not hesitate. You are winning.

Well done Joanne. The ABC even missed the real Broome “backburning” story, which would really have made an impact, see here: http://pindanpost.com/2011/08/29/abc-not-just-bias-but-incompetence-too/
This story is becoming bigger and bigger every day, at least they have finally sent a crew up here for a week to finally report on what is really happening.
In addition, the biggest threat in Broome is to the thousands of impressive dinosaur footprints, found recently by Dr. Steve Salisbury, only to be destroyed by Woodside’s proposed Dubai/Qatar giant sized Gas Hub.

It seems to me funny that the people lambasting conspiracy theorists have their own conspiracy (about Koch and bros.)

I believe in conspiracies. A keen observer of history would never miss the conspiracies that shaped history. Human nature almost demands conspiracies. It should have been the eleventh Commandment: Thou shall not make conspiracies.

George Soros, a Fabian, is among my enemies. Maurice Strong, a Greeeeeen Weeny is another. I have no problem if the Koch family is willing to do battle with the both of them. If they need my mailing address to send me funds, they can contact any of the big oil companies (that send me checks weekly).

Odd, isn’t it?
Whenever a site that has Posts that are Skeptical of Climate Change/Global Warming, the most common fall back for those who Comment from the other side is that they are ‘funded by Big Oil’ etc, or they ask questions like, “well, who are you funded by then?”
See the unwitting hypocrisy there.
They never ask those questions at sites that they agree with, and some of those sites are run be people who get Government funding.
Without doubt, those people who make those ‘funding’ comments KNOW that the site is not funded by who they claim it is, and yet they always seem to resort to that ‘fall back’ position.
Actually ‘running’ a Blog is not something where you just come in and leave a comment and then go away.
It’s time consuming.
The three comments I get most from friends and family are:
1. Why do you do it?
2. Why do you bother?
3. I could understand if you were getting paid for it.
In the main, those of us who do ‘do it’ do it because we want to do it.
It’s our Forum to point out things that perhaps we may have a specialty in, and we can highlight that as another direction for people to be looking in.
And then, when we have a site similar to Joanne’s here, a site that has ‘open’ commenting, comments that (in the main) don’t go through moderation, then all sorts of comments get through, sometimes distasteful, as evidenced by ‘Maxine’ in the Post directly under this one, and if you haven’t seen it, go looking. Try getting a comment like that one up at another site.
We ‘put up’ with comments like those, and also those comments about ‘funding’, because WE all know that is just the fall back.
Another advantage open commenting has is something that should be glaringly obvious to all of us here.
There are comments from people who disagree with the position taken at this Blog.
Those comments get published and those who do make those comments just keep coming back.
If they were so ‘anti’ what was being said here, they’d just go somewhere where they are in the majority. They must know that they’re not going to change our minds.
Another advantage of open commenting like this is that occasionally, we learn something we did not know, so sites like this offer a win/win for all of us, except the blinkered bomb in, bomb out trolls.
So comments like funding ought to be thought about carefully before being made in the first place.
Tony.

It costs money to do what Jo does. We often see this thing about not being funded by big oil, or big coal, and I just wonder if Jo does get any sponsorship from, say, The Institute of Public Affairs?

Of course it doesn’t cost that much money to run the “skeptics” campaign, because the other side does almost all of the research, and all the “skeptics” have to do is make a bit of doubt.

Without evidence to the contrary, I’d be expecting that prominent climate skeptics are funded by organisations linked to people like the Koch brothers – maybe a couple of degrees removed, but funded none the less.

Mental illness rise linked to climate
Sydney Morning Herald – Erik Jensen – ‎12 hours ago‎
The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.
As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.
The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.
”While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,” the report says.
”For instance, the intensity and frequency of bushfires is greater. This is a ‘new normal’, for which the past provides little guidance…
The paper suggests a possible link between Australia’s recent decade-long drought and climate change. It points to a breakdown of social cohesion caused by loss of work and associated stability, adding that the suicide rate in rural communities rose by 8 per cent.
The report also looks at mental health in the aftermath of major weather events possibly linked to climate change.
It shows that one in 10 primary school children reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the wake of cyclone Larry in 2006. More than one in 10 reported symptoms more than three months after the cyclone.
”There’s really clear evidence around severe weather events,” the executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, Professor Ian Hickie, said…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

SMH figures we might need this story twice, for added impact, and AAP finds all these nice rural folk (unlike the Convoy) in agreement:

29 Aug: SMH: AAP: Climate will make us depressed and anxious
The Climate Institute CEO John Connor says not only did natural disasters cost taxpayers $9 billion last year but they are also damaging Australia’s social fabric.
Dr Rob Grenfell, a general practitioner based in Natimuk in Victoria’s West Wimmera region, has witnessed this first hand.
When the region was hit with severe drought and then heavy flooding early this year there was widespread “disharmony and pain”, Dr Grenfell said.
“Many businesses have gone broke and so many people have left the community. Financial stress also brings on psychological distress and, sadly, in some cases, suicide, and episodes of domestic violence and alcohol and drug problems,” Dr Grenfell said in a statement.
Dr Allan Dale, a long-time resident of Innisfail in far north Queensland, said he was concerned what the future would look like if steps weren’t taken to tackle climate change…
“After Larry, I came to experience the effects of widespread and prolonged community-wide trauma for the first time,” Dr Dale said…http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-will-make-us-depressed-and-anxious-20110829-1jhbm.html

no brain, no mind…

Climate change linked to mental health problems
ABC Online – Peter Ryan – ‎2 hours ago‎
Professor Ian Hickie of the Brain & Mind Institute, who will launch the report in Sydney today, says regional and remote communities are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
“I think what we are seeing now is a much more significant counting of not just the short-term costs and reactions but the longer-term costs, the loss of community cohesion and that being essential to people’s long-term mental health,” Professor Hickie told ABC Radio’s AM.
“The drought was a particularly instructive event for everyone in Australia and we saw a lot of focus for the first time on the mental health effects, particularly suicides in rural families, the effect on rural communities of prolonged examples of weather change.”
Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said in addition to the $9 billion economic cost of rebuilding, a deeper cost to human health and the social fabric is emerging.
“With Australian regions increasingly exposed to extreme weather, recognising and managing the risks of climate change is essential. It’s an insurance policy to protect our communities,” he said…http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-29/climate-change-linked-to-mental-health-problems/2860150

Apparently, assuming this report of the paper is accurate (and what deranged person would doubt the veracity of the ABC?), extreme weather events are synonymous with climate change. Not only that, they are causing mental health damage. Therefore climate change causes mental health damage…

If you ask me the only mental damage is to critical thinking in the field of climate science. As soon as grant money is flashed around, all logic goes out the window.

Given that “it is the ABCs job to support the government”, what will happen to the ABCs reporting when the government changes (very soon)?
Will they apologize?
No, the ABC is a bad joke.
Whilst AGW is a political rather than scientific issue, I contend that the one of the more significant problems with the ABC is the very low level (primary?) of science and engineering education that the journalists and their support teams have acquired.
Any discussion of a science matter on the ABC quickly descends into farce.

[...] His work on climate change goes back to a keynote at the World Council of Churches colloquium on carbon trading in 2000 and has continued with his arguments that we need to re-imagine ‘the good life’ in sustainable terms and back it up with institutional mechanisms (including a ‘carbon added tax’) to support the process and the low carbon industries that will support it.

Well it probably does take an enormous intellect to find a way to reconcile free market capitalism with a carbon tax. Speaking in honour of the global warming religion in 2000, in honour of Adam Smith nine years later, and again on pricing carbon two years later is a feat of multiple mental somersaults. Yet, as with so many carbophobes, his extensive education and experience includes not one iota of natural science.

His QUT puff piece notes he was the only social scientist invited to speak in 2008 at an Australian Research Council-sponsored conference “to showcase examples of Australian research that are making a difference in our lives right now.” You could be forgiven for assuming he would understand the importance of research.

Any Jonovians that are Brisneylanders may be interested in attending this lecture if they can get the time off. Sometimes there is an audience Q&A session at the end, sometimes not. You may even get the chance to ask: “Professor, how exactly did you reach the conclusion that emission of carbon dioxide was a problem in need of a prompt solution? Please note that making reference to the IPCC in any but negative terms in your answer will result in marks being deducted!”

It costs money to do what Jo does. We often see this thing about not being funded by big oil, or big coal, and I just wonder if Jo does get any sponsorship from, say, The Institute of Public Affairs?

Of course it doesn’t cost that much money to run the “skeptics” campaign, because the other side does almost all of the research, and all the “skeptics” have to do is make a bit of doubt.

Without evidence to the contrary, I’d be expecting that prominent climate skeptics are funded by organisations linked to people like the Koch brothers – maybe a couple of degrees removed, but funded none the less.

Maybe the ABC could devote a 4 Corners to it?

You must be kidding, John. On the one hand you attempt to besmirch Jo’s motives by suggesting she is in the pay of some unnamed right wing affiliate, then you immediately contradict yourself by suggesting skeptics would only need a shoestring budget because they don’t need much money to cast doubt on the multi-trillion dollar scam that you are peripherally involved in. You can’t have it both ways…..Oh, sorry, I forgot, you lefties are so “fair” and “scrupulously honest” that you could never be unfair or indecent, now could you? And I’m sure any 4 Corners “expose” on climate skepticism would be as one eyed and blind to even handed evidence gathering as you would be. For once and for all, journalists are NOT interested in truth or even handed presentation of facts. NOT EVER. They purely push the barrow of their own philosophy for their own purposes and present the facts that suit their argument, while they suppress those facts which don’t suit them. It is really just that simple. And that goes to both “wings” of journalism, it just so happens that the vast majority of the MSM is left wing, but the knife cuts both ways IMO.

This may not be as strange as it sounds. It is well known that rates of schizophrenia are higher in 1st and 2nd generation migrants. Changing climate may well mean more migration, due to rising sea level and changes in agriculture.

So its quite reasonable to expect climate change to produce more mental illness.

Uni of Sydney Brain and Mind Institute
The power of the BMRI concept is demonstrated by the interest of private community sources and the level of funding for capital works from the Federal and NSW State Governments ($15 million and $45 million respectively). This includes $15million for refurbishment of Basic Neurosciences at 100 Mallett St and the Ken Parker Brain Research Laboratories (Australian Government); $22million for a new Youth Mental Health Building and Clinical & Translational research at 94 Mallett St (NSW Government). The NSW State Government has recently announced a further $25million for the construction of a Brain & Mind Research Hospital.

If we don’t start tackling climate change, Australians will be increasingly depressed, anxious or stressed, and more prone to substance abuse, a new report says.

…..and more prone to substance abuse. WTF!
I can just see offenders in front of the ‘Beak’ right now.
But but but, Your Honour, my client…..
I’m willing to bet this was a Government funded study.
(Now now Tony, pot and kettle!)
Tony.

Acknowledgements
The Climate Institute is grateful to the following people for their assistance and advice: Prof. Tony
McMichael and Dr Anthony Hogan at the Australian National University and ANU’s National Centre for
Epidemiology and Population Health for support and encouragement. Assoc. Prof. Helen Berry at the
Centre for Research and Action in Public Health at the University of Canberra for reviewing the paper.
Dr Susie Burke at the Australian Psychological Society for comments, advice and support. Liz Priestly
and the Mental Health Association of NSW for their support. For their advice and support, and for
sharing their stories of endurance, we are grateful to Daryl Taylor and fellow members of the Kinglake
mountain community, Dr Allan Dale in Innisfail, and Dr Rob Grenfell in Natimuk. Professor David Karoly
at the University of Melbourne provided physical scientific peer review. Graphic design work was
done by the Net Balance Foundation

John, I know climate alarmism certainly gives rise to mental illness. You just have to read one of Gavin Schmidt’s rants to realise that. A disconnect with reality will do that, don’t you know. A mass delusion on a grand scale that has sent many on your side of the fence absolutely stark raving bonkers, jumping at shadows, catastrophising every little storm or wind gust into an apocalyptic nightmare. Unreasonable fears at every tick of the clock will make you paranoid and overwhelmed, losing hope for the future. Don’t have to be Freud to work it out.

Any discussion of a science matter on the ABC quickly descends into farce.

This is a topic which Jo could lend an expert opinion towards.

Hey Jo! (How do we get Jo’s attention in a thread, is there a Jo-shaped bat signal??)

I imagine the two main difficulties in science education are
a) deciding how much scientific understanding of a specific topic is enough to justify disseminating the state of the art to either scientists outside that field or to non-scientists, and
b) how to smooth over the inevitable fact that in order to be educated about something you have to confront something you don’t understand, and therefore how complex or detailed does one make the material versus how much is too much.

In other words, if we’re talking about anything scientific at the ABC and not just climate change then we have a generic problem which journos in all media face. In your own opinion, what are the main difficulties in successful science communication, and how have you tried to resolve these in your prior work?
Would there be anything particular you would add to the blog post of last year “What the heck are science journalists for?”

Back to the ABC…

Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, how much of ABC TV’s programming regularly contains scientifically addressable topics compared to the programmes of other channels? My initial impression was that this fraction is higher than on other stations, regardless of the ABC statements’ correctness. Indeed a search of the next 7 days’ programs for “science” reveals 32 matches discounting some repeats that are retransmissions on a lower quality channel.
Of these 32 shows across all channels, 15 of them are on an ABC station channel. In an even distribution across stations we might expect about 6 or 7 per station in a week. If you want to watch something scientific it would seem the ABC is likely to be the place to go – that’s what these numbers say. The real question then is… why don’t the other channels try harder?

The only risk to mental health from global warming is when people realise they’ve allowed what is left of their free market system being governed by merchant bankers trading an element from the periodic table for no proven reason.

But JG and al gore told us it was all true. I saw a documentary with a big graph…. but but….

Oct 2006: Age: Jewel Topsfield: Browned off, sceptics turn activists
MARK Wootton is not a typical climate change crusader. A “totally non-political” farmer, with a 5058-hectare sheep and cattle property north of Hamilton, in the Western District, he and his wife, Eve Kantor — Rupert Murdoch’s niece — do not fit the mould of dreadlocked greenies preaching about global warming…
When Ms Kantor’s late brother, Tom Kantor, left the couple with a substantial estate last year, they decided to donate $10 million to establish the Climate Institute…
Mr Wootton says he is encouraged by signs that Mr Murdoch, media baron and former greenhouse sceptic, appears to be a convert. His London Sun has launched a “Go Green with the Sun” campaign, warning global warming could put London underwater.http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/browned-off-sceptics-turn-activists/2006/10/22/1161455608870.html

am guessing this is our Dr. Dale…if so, surely the report should have mentioned this conflict of interest!

13 July 2010: Australian: Asa Wahlquiat: Simple changes would capture carbon
Allan Dale, chief executive of Innisfail-based natural resources group Terrain, argues that paying farmers and land managers for increased carbon in grasses, small plants, shrubs and the soil would be “one of those rare win-wins in life”. Terrain is a community-based body, funded by the Queensland and federal governments, industry and private companies, which runs natural resource programs in the wet tropics.
Dr Dale said increasing the amount of terrestrial carbon — the carbon in vegetation and the soil — would not only reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide but also improve biodiversity and the health of the environment…
Land managers are hoping Julia Gillard will also include terrestrial carbon in her climate change package.
“It is a mechanism that can quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Dr Dale said…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/simple-changes-would-capture-carbon/story-e6frg6xf-1225890947306

as for Mr. Grenfell, he’s not happy with drought, and not happy with rain, cos it went thru his art gallery:

Jan 2011: Australian: Pia Ackerman: First the drought, now rains fail to shake town’s spirit
In the country town of Natimuk, near Horsham, 327km northwest of Melbourne, at least 12 houses were evacuated as a local creek through the middle of town overflowed.
Local GP and art gallery owner Rob Grenfell raced back from Melbourne yesterday morning to find about 50cm of water lapping through the gallery.
“Twelve years of drought, then rain ruined the harvest,” he said. “The ability of the town (to revive) is going to be stuffed again, which is sad. It’s a bloody great little town, everybody is helping everybody.”…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/first-the-drought-now-rains-fail-to-shake-towns-spirit-victoria/story-fn7iwx3v-1225986627098

This may not be as strange as it sounds. It is well known that rates of schizophrenia are higher in 1st and 2nd generation migrants. Changing climate may well mean more migration, due to rising sea level and changes in agriculture.

So its quite reasonable to expect climate change to produce more mental illness.

Try this similar logic line on for size John…

This may not be as strange as it sounds. It is well known that rates of suicide bombings are higher in those of the Muslim faith. So it’s quite reasonable to expect allowing more Muslim migrants into Australia may lead to suicide bombings in Australia.

Whichever university you learned logic and clear thinking, I’d ask for my money back and sue for wasted years John.

p.s. Before any pinko lefto commo ba$tard leaps into me about racism, know that I was born a Muslim in a Muslim country, so save your stinking breath.

Then of course, there is the group that’s at highest risk of mental illness.

Much like this fellow, when the proverbial really hits the fan, and many of the corrupt practices are exposed for what they are, i.e. lying, cheating, misrepresenting, conning, defrauding etc many others will consider taking the easy way out instead of facing the shame and ridicule.

There is nothing new in the behavior of the ABC and the corporate media in general, it has been very blatant in the past decade though.
The BBC is famous for announcing the collapse of WTC building 7 22 minutes before it actually collapsed, brobably fired up the Tardis. Recently the Beeb had the Libyan rebels celebrating the fall of Gadaffi in Green square Tripoli, only they were actually waving Indian flags and were actually Indian people. It was a huge throng, apparently any throng will do when it’s the message that matters.

(Insert the name you guessed here) claimed on Friday that scientists involved in advancing the theory of global warming wouldn’t do it just for the money.

Without recognizing the hypocrisy, he also told FearLess Cottage consumer advocate Alex Bogusky that scientists espousing a skeptical view of his money-making theory are exclusively doing so for their own financial benefit.

Now Max, I know Julia Gillard is a heroine of yours; being the first Australian Prime Minister with no balls and all, but just like it’s homophone heroin, experimenting for a very short time may be harmless, but repetitive indulgence has been proven to be highly damaging.

Most Australians recognise that (especially the older crowd) and are asking the experimental youth (like Get Up) to Get Off the substance before permanent damage is caused.

I was there on the 22nd. Alan Jones was saying that the police would not allow the convoys into the area near where people gathering. The buses for the rally on the 16th were allowed to park near the venue and a short distance away near old parliament house. That is what Jones was saying, the trucks were stopped by police getting to those areas. Insiders on Sunday completely misrepresented this they said the trucks were allowed into Canberra. That was never in dispute. While I was there the numbers were more than reported there certainly more than a couple of hundred. When people are unhappy and angry enough to come from all parts of Australia to be there at large personal cost it says a lot. Every person there represented many more who couldn’t come. I am a university educated retiree who remembers many governments back to Menzies. In my memory such an event has never happened in Australia before. Labor’s response was, you are of no consequence go away and with that probably lost all possiblity of support from the voters in country areas for a generation.

Where “Counterpoint” talks to a couple of seemingly Academics, though they seem rather laid back & sensible for academics, remind us of a few home truths about the Land. They also put Wind & Solar in context.

Michael Duffy seems to be treading a fine line and I don’t know how long before this programme gets its funding cut, but listen to it while you can. Thanks Michael.

The consequence is failure to govern. After all you cannot manage let alone govern that which you cannot understand.

You are right to a point.

At the moment, this is a propaganda war. They have the massed forces, we have the highly mobile units, and we are scoring some hits on their flanks, but not damaging their main force. We are as stinging insects, we can hurt and distract, but we cannot kill.

At some point, they will move against the skeptics, and then they will find that we are like smoke. The trick then is to lure them over the nearest convenient cliff. That cliff will be the next election. That will be the decisive point.

Shame they didn’t do it while the convoy was on the road… my response:

100% behind you Neil and the main thrust of the convoy. It was pitiful the way the MSM reported on this serious and civil protest.

Unfortunately there is a major disconnect betwene the current minority Government and the people. The polls clearly show it, but desperate to cling to power they will flush Labor’s reputation down the S-bend rather than admit the policy is flawed beyond belief.

Keep up the good fight mate! and ignore the countless ABC PC-trolls that will try to tear you down in this forum.

Why dont people ask where all the big climate change preachers are getting their money from?
What about Al Gore? I mean, hes the largest share holder of the worlds second largest petrochemical company ‘Occidental Petroleum’ who, in conjunction with General Electric (among others), are forcing coal fire plants to be shut down across America.

General Electric are nuclear power station builders (they built Fukushima) among other power sources and consumables. Its in their best interest to have coal fire stations shut down so they can own the market.

You realise that by 2013 in America all regular light globes will be banned. The only globes you can buy will be the crappy ‘energy saver’ globes which retail for $20+ each! And who is the sole manufacturer of the only legal globes Americans will be able to buy? You guessed it. . . General Electric.

With the carbon tax or emissions trading schemes you will be paying Al Gore a fee for every single kilowatt of electricity you use.

Us ‘sceptics’ are just arguing against the flawed ‘science’ of climate change, we are fighting to stop corrupt mega corporations and governments from bleeding us dry and destroying our livelihood.

AGW believers are truely blind to the bigger picture. It baffles me that they just dont see whats going on.
AGW followers seriously believe the government and mega corporations actually give a damn about the environment.

Al Gore has basically said that if you dont pay him climate taxes then you are a racist. Thats what he said!

The Environmental Protection Agency has decreed CO2 as harmful and coal fire plants and other companies will have to pay for emitting it.
But, guess what. . . General Electric has a waver. They dont have to pay anything.
Just like they didnt have to pay a single cent in federal taxes last year while they made in excess of $15 billion profit!
Why? Because theyre the largest donator to Obama.

Coal fire plants, which provide over 50% of power to the USA have to pay for the privilege to emit CO2. Who ownes the organisations they have to pay? Rothschild and Rockefeller. Who has a big stake in them? Al Gore.
They are forcing the shut down of coal fire plants, forcing rolling blackouts to businesses and residents. They are manufacturing an energy shortage, causing over demand and a supply shortage which forces energy prices up.

It is EXACTLY what is about to happen here.
You need to open your eyes!
Get over this whole “Oh no! Climate change! Save the planet!” Its not about that at all.

Credit where credit is due. I don’t want to knock Auntie just for the hell of it, so I am very happy to shower ABC Science with praise (OK, bit strong perhaps, maybe just a gentlemanly “well done” will suffice) for a balanced and sensible report on the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

Didn’t some psychologists express concern about the mental wellbeing of children who were being subjected to climate doomsday scenarios at school?

Some might call that education, I call that child abuse!

It is natural for people to suffer varying levels of mental anguish following traumatic events – sudden death in a family, car accidents, losing your job and natural weather events included. However, we are now adding to the mental burden people carry as we have created a society whereby many believe it is doomed and now experience natural weather phenomenon as evidence of humanity’s evil doing. There is your recipe for increased mental illness.

One of the interesting things I noted during the floods earlier this year was the resilience of some rural communities, especially those that were able to put the flooding into the context of historical floods going back generations. I saw this with the markers on rivers showing previous flood levels going back in some cases to the 1800’s. To them, it was just a normal part of living on the land – something their forebears had overcome and so would they. It was a positive narrative of spirit and hardiness.

Resilience is the key word here. Resilience is built by experiencing adversity and overcoming it. That is what builds confidence to cope in future. But if you tell people the future is doomed and that they are somehow responsible?

It is the ludicrous alarmism that is CAUSING unnecessary psychological torment with the growing prevalence of skewed mental schemas centred around perpetual pending environmental disaster.

ABC will always be biased about bitting the hand that feed them.
This too has produced huge amounts of bad science that follows politics rather than science for the funding that is available to them.

This is why skeptics exist to ask questions and try to find answers to areas that make absolutely no sense(except to the scientists)that use their arrogance of saying why we should not listen to them with full trust that they are absolutely correct in their theories and conclusions.
Assumption in science is the mother of all screw ups.

You realise that by 2013 in America all regular light globes will be banned. The only globes you can buy will be the crappy ‘energy saver’ globes which retail for $20+ each!

We are shifting over to energy saver bulbs (globes) as our old incandescent bulbs die. The amount of light produced from an 11W energy saver is much the same as the light from a 60W incandescent bulb, once it is up to maximum brightness. And therein lies the rub. It takes about 20 minutes to reach that level of output. Also the energy saver bulbs cost about five times as much as an incandescent bulb.

So we did a little math. A 60W bulb burning for 8hrs/day = 480W, with an average bulb life ~ 8-12 months. A 11W saver bulb burning for 24hrs/day = 264W, with an average bulb life > 28 months and still counting.

The energy saver bulbs burn a lot of energy getting up to temperature, and they only get down to their rated Wattage once they are at the top of the curve, also much of the “wear” to the electronics occurs during the stresses of startup.

So the solution we have adopted is turn them on, and never turn them off, since it seems to be the cheapest option. As long as your supplier has decent base load generation, and you are not totally reliant on wind and solar as your primary means of electricity production, then it becomes a non-issue.

You must be kidding, John. On the one hand you attempt to besmirch Jo’s motives

Not at all. I’m sure Jo truly believes what she says, and only does so from positive motives. I just think it likely that some right wing think tank money comes her way. But maybe it doesn’t – who knows/

__________I know. It doesn’t. Your thinking about Jo is wholly incorrect, which doesn’t bode well for your other thoughts on AGW. — Editor

I just think it likely that some right wing think tank money comes her way. But maybe it doesn’t – who knows

By that logic, you personally must be “likely” to be funded by some left wing think tank (now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one!). Perhaps you are projecting a bit there John, my boy. Jo gives me the impression that she just plain doesn’t like to be lied to, or told blatant untruths passed off as fact, or be subject to sweeping statements that have no grounding in reality (250,000 climate refugees, massive sea level rise, drowning polar bears, etc). Whether she is correct or not, I don’t doubt her genuineness because she is CONSISTENT in her positions. There are no moving goal posts ( eg. rising global temps 3 deg/decade, no 2 deg per decade, no 1.5…..no…..etc). Something all the apparent climate “experts” seem totally incapable of doing. They lack clarity, consistency, transparency, and often logic. And then they blame us when they fail to be convincing, and question our motives when we just want logically given, open and transparent, unaltered and unexpurgated empirical evidence to support their contentions. And they wonder why the common people are angry. You need a lobotomy not to be, lets face it.

So why on earth did the Convoy of No organizers think that getting Alan Jones of all people up to speak would be a good idea? This is the cash for comments dude for dogs sake! He got up in front of the few who turned up to the speeches and went feral with garbage like this mythical 2km long convoy denied entry??

The trucks going round and round?? Well, the ABC’s Toolman was in one and even that Fiberal shill reports that driving in circles blowing their horns was what they preferred to be doing.

Not at all. I’m sure Jo truly believes what she says, and only does so from positive motives. I just think it likely that some right wing think tank money comes her way. But maybe it doesn’t – who knows/

So John, let’s suppose Jo does get some right wing think tank money. Why would that be wrong?

Governments and the interests that keep them in power have more money to put behind global warming than any right wing think tank could ever spend to oppose them.

Is it wrong to disagree? Is it wrong to want to say so? I say no to both questions! Do you?

No John, the real intent is to silence the dissent. Otherwise they would just meet it head-on with their data and arguments and be confident they could win the debate.

When you watch what people actually do instead of doting on their every word, the view is quite different.

So the solution we have adopted is turn them on, and never turn them off, since it seems to be the cheapest option. As long as your supplier has decent base load generation, and you are not totally reliant on wind and solar as your primary means of electricity production, then it becomes a non-issue.

Rereke,

And already the planet savers are bitching about people leaving the lights on longer because they don’t cost as much to run. Never happy, these self-righteous types.

I’ve used fluorescent lighting as much as possible for a long time simply because I don’t have to replace bulbs all over the house every couple of months. I’ve run some for as much a 10 years before having to replace them.

The lifetime of the new stuff is anyone’s guess. I had an electrician rewire my kitchen with new ballasts for the new tubes because I can’t get the older ones anymore. He told me the lifetime isn’t very good. I didn’t ask him if he meant the tubes or the ballasts.

I have a hallway fixture that formerly held three standard bulbs. I put in three similar light output fluorescent jobs earlier this year. They provide enough light. But guess what? The damned things are a very inductive load with no attempt at compensating for it. So every time those lights are turned off I can hear the arc as the switch contacts open. How hard is it to put in a capacitor? I’ve no idea how long a light switch can stand that sort of abuse. So far, so good.

In any case, the power shortages sure to come are going to make the light bulb question seem unimportant.

They will drive us into the ground if we can’t find a way to defeat them.

The Compact Florescent bulbs are toxic, hazardous, dangerous and don’t last as long as touted.

I’ve had three go up in flames. I won’t buy them any more. I’ve been stocking up on incandescent bulbs which are still available and when on sale are dirt cheap. I think the law banning sales of incandescent bulbs will be repealed. LED bulbs are MUCH better, and should eclipse CF bulb sales soon enough to retire the issue.

No one minds saving money but CF bulbs are a joke on everyone (except maybe the Chinese manufacturers).

Without evidence to the contrary, I’d be expecting that prominent climate skeptics are funded by organisations linked to people like the Koch brothers – maybe a couple of degrees removed, but funded none the less.

You ask evidence of something that isn’t, without which you’ll not accept that it isn’t.
The assertion then that Jo et al. are funded by Koch, and if not Koch then by someone Koch like, and if not them then by someone linked to them, isn’t falsifiable. It can only be proven if true. Doesn’t that make a nonsense of Popper, or of something else ?

He [Alan Jones] got up in front of the few who turned up to the speeches and went feral with garbage like this mythical 2km long convoy denied entry??

So where did that Albanese bloke get, with his Bill to have Alan Jones apologise !!!

Fer pity’s sake. See why these people cann’t be trusted with power ? They want to use Parliametary Bills to hurl playground accusations & insults, because my Bill’s bigger than your Radio Show no doubt. Someone needs to bang their heads together.

The Compact Florescent bulbs are toxic, hazardous, dangerous and don’t last as long as touted.

I think that depends on what we mean by “energy saver bulbs”. If by compact fluorescent bulbs you mean the wound up tubes, I would agree.

We are using Marexim “Calmtone” “Safety Bulbs” (http://www.marexim.com). They have exactly the same form factor as a standard 60W bulb, with the addition of a small ceramic-like collar above the Edison screw. They fit all of our existing lighting appliances as a standard bulb would do. They also make other form factors, like R80 flood lights, which we may use at a later date.

They claim, on the packaging that they are 100% recyclable. New Zealand has laws around honesty in advertising, so I would be interested if there were known issues around recycling. Also, they carry a 2 year warranty and ours have been going continuously (apart from a power failure recently) for 28 months. Regular incandescent and florescent lights don’t last that long. I will be interested to see if the life of these bulbs is greater (per $) than incandescent.

And to be clear, I was not promoting the use of energy saver bulbs. I was merely pointing out that the law of unintended consequences works both ways, and you may be able to save money by having your lights on all of the time.

I guess a secondary lesson is that there are several different technologies emerging as a result of the “greening” of energy, and some of them might actually be useful.

I have seen JB in the flesh a couple of times, and as far fetched as it may seem, he might just be a “right-thinking” Greenie. I doubt the other association is helpful in any way. He might also be a member of Mensa, but all his posts to date fail to lend weight to that proposition. Hope you didn’t choke on your morning beverage of choice :p

I think there is a much simpler (on many levels) explanation. The chap clearly loves being disruptive, as he was that day in front of Parliament House when the sceptics and friends were protesting about private property rights (or rather the lack of them). He clearly thinks he is on the higher moral ground and with the backing of so many (Government funded) scientists, how could he possibly be wrong?

Also he seems to love the attention. There are words to describe this also, but I leave it to your imagination. Perhaps if people refused to be drawn by his logic-defying statements he would be less of an influence on this forum, but I always see the glass as half full. He serves as an excellent reminder of how ludicrous some of the Green thinking is. Any unprejudiced reader who strolls past here will sooner be swayed by Jo’s arguments than JB’s demonstrations of ignorance.

Also I listened to 2GB last night. Each week they have “The Clash” with Andrew Bolt and Paul Howes (Union head AWU). Andrew kept repeating over and over, Julia Gillard is doing a wonderful job; Julia Gillard is a great PM etc. etc. Whatever your political persuasion – you should be very worried if OUR DEMOCRACY is being shut down!

Just check back over the last days of Andrews site, you will notice that a whole lot of threads have gone missing, all to do with CT and JG and others. I would predict that the lawyers have been hard at work !!

Anyone who links to an IPCC site which claims to have reliable observational climate evidence and the CRU is part of that evidence is deluded; I don’t think you’re desperate; that requires some self-awareness.

“Do you begin to see then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of fear and trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”

I cannot help getting an uneasy feeling that the sudden and unexpected outbreak of “fair and balanced” reporting at the ABC over weekend, and the disappearance of all things Gillard and Thomson from Bolt and 2UE for the same period, are somehow connected.

I’m beginning to think the “Statutory Declaration” and the covering story by Glenn Milne may have been some kind of “sting” operation designed specifically to stitch up Bolt and Smith over at 2UE, and deflect some of the heat from the Thomson affair.

But then, you came here to show us up unless I miss my guess. They all do. Then they leave again when we don’t buckle under their withering attack. You will too.

Anyone who links to an IPCC site which claims to have reliable observational climate evidence and the CRU is part of that evidence is deluded

Roy and Cohen

The withering attack (Or Ad Hominem as Jo would say) doesn’t seem to be coming from me. A request was made for empirical data. I looked for a repository of climate data available online and suggested it. I didn’t suggest which conclusions to draw or to read the IPCC reports. I just figured there were probably links to published data sets on that site.

This is a generic statement, that does not apply to any specific person(s) or any current events.
When a politician is about to lose their job, they look for alternate means to generate large amounts of revenue, before they lose their position of power. It has been done before, it will be done again.

Also interesting to note the timing of the Statutory Declaration and subsequent Glenn Milne story (now retracted).

Given that it was always going to be something that got “lawyered up” very quickly, and therefore unable to be discussed anywhere but during Question Time under Parliamentary Privilege, why on earth release them on a weekend prior to a two-week break in parliament?

Unless, of course, the whole idea was to AVOID such discussion.

Never lose sight of the fact that Glenn Milne was responsible for the “walletgate” disclosures that helped bring down the Howard government in 2007.

The ABC doesn’t just protect the government from awkward questions. Back in 1996 in the Sydney suburb of Epping some 700 young children were heavily fumigated by toxic fallout (including hexavalent chromium and lead sulphate) from a chemical transport accident adjacent to a school and pre-school. The chemicals were en-route to be processed into colour inks for a major newspaper group with ties to the ABC. The newspaper embargoed coverage of the story and the ABC dutifully followed suit.

REPLY: Cliff, have you got an links to substantiate those allegations? What records are there of a chemical accident?

Looks to me like Andrew Bolt was late on the bandwagon and is now frightened that he over reached himself. There was much on the weekend from him about these “revelations” that would cause panic in the PM’s office which really appeared to me to be him trying to drum up interest in his sunday show.

Milne published monday and when i read the article i thought, so what. It appeared to be a recycling of accusations from years ago that have already been publicly addressed. Seems that Milne published just so everyone would know he was squeezing this particular muck years before the current crop of dunny divers but that makes sense considering that he is pretty desperate to keep any profile at all after the brawling incident at the NPC.

Interesting that Bolts political stuff is in hiatus? I hadn’t heard that. Maybe the lawyers have finally sat him down and told him to stop writing the kind of unsupportable nasty crap he is so well known for? Maybe we’ll even see that serial idiot Alan Jones toning down some of his more outlandish stuff soon and stop peddling the kind of untruths that he was mouthing at the Convoy protest. Nah, that would be too much of a major outbreak of sanity.

As far as it being a “sting” or “stich up”, who cares. No-one forces them to say or write anything and if they are stupid enough to jump on a topic without researching the credibility of their sources then they deserve what they get. Journalistic evolution in action.

Looks to me like this statutory declaration thing may be resulting in a syrian style muzzle. Probably involving lawyers.

I understand Kathy Jackson was going to talk on sunday, but backed out. I would suggest something uber serious is afoot for someone with kathys backbone to be intimidated.

The abcs sudden balancing act may be an attempt to fill the whole being created with people more controllable.

This govt has been whining that they just can’t be heard. Of course I have been listening, but they’ve been do detached from rwality thst its been getting really painful to listen of late. I guess it may have been just a matter of time and a trigger was required before they implement the only way they can force us to listen. A muzzle.

You are being disingenuous. If you wish to be even handed then (a) note the questions associated with the IPCC, particularly their one sided partisanship (eg keeping out peer reviewed papers that they don’t like) and (b) offering an alternative source for cross checking.

For the latter I would recommend this site, which gives a wide range of climate data plus links to the sources. The flavour is sceptical, but that is a just balance to the bias of the IPCC mafia.

I am always willing to debate the merits of scientific data should you wish to examine the claims of either website.

catamon: exactly what lies was Alan Jones delivering at the Convoy protest?

He claimed that trucks were stopped at the ACT Border – they were – many truck drivers have sent emails to Alan describing how there were around 9 police cars at the border and every truck was pulled over and searched, they were then directed to park at certain grounds throughout Canberra. That’s why they didn’t make it to the protest and why the numbers were lower than expected. It also explains why the local Canberra traffic wasn’t disrupted.

catamon@140; nothing interesting about your analysis; one comment. however, does sum it up:

Chris Maddigan :
26 Aug 2011 9:36:56am
Ah Jane, what a lovely example of desperate wishful thinking you present. A shame it is a load of bollocks.

The core of the delusion is the idea that once the carbon tax is in place everyone will see that all the fuss was about nothing and everything is well with the world. But Jane, there will be job losses, there will be company collapses and there will be price hikes. And they will keep on happening. Everyone will be sheeted home to the carbon tax, justified or not. Each one will open up a fresh wound in Labor’s popularity.

And remember that the carbon price keeps rising, the damage ever escalating. Ah the carbon tax, the gift that keeps on giving. Further it will soon be apparent that none of the promised benefits of a carbon price will be delivered. No “new energy economy” will develop, just an ever growing body of parasites demanding more and more government support continuously driving up energy prices higher and higher. Global emissions will grow unabated and the climate won’t change.

So even if Abbott is thwarted at every turn in trying to eliminate the carbon tax his stocks will keep on going up and up and those obstructing him, Labor and the greens will keep falling further and further behind. Eventually they will lose control of the senate even without a double dissolution. Labor will be unelectable for more than a decade.

But Jane, I don’t see that Labor allowing this to happen. In the unlikely event that the Gillard government reaches full turn, after the electoral rout they will drop the carbon tax as fast as the liberals dropped work choices. Gillard, Combet, Swan and Wong will be finished and will slowly disappear from the scene and Labor will begin a slow rehabilitation. It will exhibit a paranoid fear of everything green.

I was thinking same as you. If you look at the comments you’ll find the Sportsbet odds were contradicting Ms Shaw. Shortly after I put them up Sportsbet closed its tote on the election day, and also closed its bets on who whould be next PM. I think it was all getting to politically hairy for them.

I looked over the site and read the commenting guidelines. If I post something in the wrong place or violate any rules please politely explain where I’ve gone wrong

Hi Bruce

I’m not being disingenuous. I know that many people are uneasy accepting the IPCC’s interpretation of the body of climate change research. I was not aware that every single study that the IPCC sources was discredited by default (that wouldn’t be very even-handed). I’d hope that there were many sound papers referenced by or available at that website. There’s no easy way to determine if a paper is good quality or not. Sometimes you can tell by reading them, sometimes you can’t.

After ten years of faithful service the incandescent bulb in my carport gave up the ghost so i was forced to replace it with one of these new fangled ones. The luminosity is so poor i cannot see where to put my key in the door.

There is another alternative to the silencing of Bolt etc (thread title is rather ironic here).

Firstly is it possible for the government to shut down Bolt? No of course not, we may not live in a democracy anymore but they have not got around to changing the laws yet in other words free speech is still allowed….well in most cases it is. If Bolt was out of line then channel ten etc would sack him, rather they love him as his ratings are great.

Note that Bolt has not accused CT of spending the money he just asked why CT is protecting the man who did and this is where the heart of this conspiracy lies. Who did spend that money on pros etc. Was it CT? If it was then i can understand he keeping quiet thus keeping Labor in power, but CT has stead fastly claimed it was not him he merely approved the payment and was then suddenly lavished with cash for is election campaign among other things.

So what is really going on here? who is CT and by logical extension the PM protecting? Someone abused the use of a credit card and the guy who kept his mouth shut got looked after, looked after so much even the PM is protecting him.

We see this as the PM keeping herself in power but what if it was for another reason more important than that? What would force Bolt to suddenly stop ASKING OBVIOUS AND LEGAL QUESTIONS? Dont tell me the lawyers have threatened him, i dont buy that for a second.

There is enough evidence to charge someone with embezzlement/fraud/misappropriation of funds, call it what you will. Thomson has calimed he did not spend the money but knew the money was spent as he authorised the payments he also stated he knew who spent the 15 odd K and they had paid the money back. However further investigation has shown hundreds of thousands of dollars have changed hands which is why the NSW police are investigating.

I think we will find (assuming the truth comes out) there is a lot more going on here than what meets the eye, hence a sudden quiet by Bolt, 2UE etc.

No of course not, we may not live in a democracy anymore but they have not got around to changing the laws yet in other words free speech is still allowed….well in most cases it is.

This is an astonishing statement in many ways. For starters, Australia is a democracy, if you want to see what an undemocratic state looks like, why don’t you go to Cuba, or China, or Saudi Arabia, and see how far you get expressing dissenting political views.

Your second major howler is that Australia, unlike the U.S., doesn’t have a constitutional protection for free speech. We had to rely on the work of some eminent activist judges to interpret a narrow right to political communication in the constitution. Australia, like the U.K., is one of those places where defamation laws mean that people can be stopped from publishing views even if they are true! Yet why is it that it is generally (but not exclusively) the conservative side of politics that is against a bill of rights to strengthen freedom of speech?

If Bolt was out of line then channel ten etc would sack him, rather they love him as his ratings are great.

His ratings are pretty hopeless. He is being consistently out-rated by ABC1′s Insiders. Yeah sure he gets more viewers over all, but that is because exactly the same show is played twice.

All of the MSM has gone strangely silent (I not seen anything like this before). Can someone point to a link that might explain what is going on? My curiousity is peeked.

The Australian published accusations about the Prime Minister that were untrue, and that The Australian admits no one bothered to check the veracity of. The Australian published the following apology on its website yesterday:

THE AUSTRALIAN published today an opinion piece by Glenn Milne which includes assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister.

The Australian acknowledges these assertions are untrue. The Australian also acknowledges no attempt was made by anyone employed by, or associated with, The Australian to contact the Prime Minister in relation to this matter.

The Australian unreservedly apologises to the Prime Minister and to its readers for the publication of these claims.

If you want to know the precise nature of the lies that Glenn Milne asserted yesterday, I suggest you find a copy of yesterday’s Australian and read his article. The Australian has obviously pulled it from its website for legal reasons, but that just makes you wonder why the article wasn’t first sent the the paper’s lawyers before it was published.

It seems the ALP / Greens are really starting to hang their hat on this issue of Abbott not being able to undo/repeal the Carbon Tax. It’s being mentioned on a number of sites. The key point they seeme to think is important is that businesses will be so tied up with their investments surrounding the Tax they will not want to have it undone — except for those involved in the carbon credits scam , I would have thought most of the other “investment” will be a worrying cost for most business. The other aspect is the cost to Govt. of compensation which they will put into the final parliamentary Bill.
All I can say is if this pans out the way they want it to then there will be new left wing political parties developing in Australia because Labor and the Greens will be gone for good.
( And hopefully the Chinese growth continues because Australia will need it to recover the cost of the mess left behind)

By your post I assume you would be against any muzzling of bolt or 2ue regarding the thomson scandal? if that is what is happening?

I believe that Australia should have an explicit protection for freedom of speech in the constitution.

This would not be an ABSOLUTE protection for freedom of speech. Someone should not have a right to threaten another individual. But yes, I accept that in Australia freedom of speech isn’t protected enough.

What the Australian did yesterday isn’t really a freedom of speech issue. The fact they published something that had not been verified, and that just hours after publication they conceded is “untrue” (their word) simply demonstrates that it is an incompetent publication that can’t be trusted to get much right.

I have never heard of a new means of taxing us carbon based life forms being repealed. Some taxes go, but a new way to tax people is something completely different.

This is the ideal tax system for governments. Its so obscure from what people pay that any increases will be difficult to quantify in terms of what the people pay in advance of said increases occurring.

They aren’t kidding when they call it a carbon tax. All us carbon based life forms will pay. For those fortunate to be subsidised initially, those subsidies will be easy targets for spending addicted governments.

and an opposition will find it nigh on impossible to put increases in terms of what it will cost you.

meanwhile, real polluters of waterways etc will be laughing their arses off

It seems the ALP / Greens are really starting to hang their hat on this issue of Abbott not being able to undo/repeal the Carbon Tax. It’s being mentioned on a number of sites. The key point they seeme to think is important is that businesses will be so tied up with their investments surrounding the Tax

No it isn’t just that. It just relates to how the parliament works and the constitutional requirements for a double dissolution election (yes, there’s constitutional requirements for a D.D. election, they can’t be held just become some petitioners request one).

Let’s say the Coalition wins the next election in the second half of 2013. Even if the new parliament started in late 2013, and the new Government had prepared a bill to repeal the ETS, all they could do is pass it through the House. Once it arrived at the Senate in early 2014, Labor and the Greens would send the bill off to every Senate standing committee they could think of. They may even set up a few new committees to deliberate over the bill as well. All of these committees would be given 6 months or maybe even a year to report on the bill, before the Senate would agree to letting it be voted on. So we are at mid 2014 when the Senate would vote the bill down for the first time. Sure, in July 1 2014 the new Senate would take over, but the government would have to wait 3 months before the second rejection of the bill for it to become a D.D. trigger. So by that stage we are in late 2014 at the earliest. Even if the Government goes to a D.D. election straight away, the parliament probably wouldn’t sit very late 2014 or early 2015.

Now, after a D.D., it is quite possible the Greens will hold the balance of power again! So the bill would be rejected by the Senate again, and only pass at a joint sitting.

By that stage it is early to mid 2015, and the Coalition has left themselves just 4.5 years to cut carbon emissions by 5% on 2020 levels. The only way would be able to do it would be by tens of billions, potentially $100 billion on carbon abatement projects.

On top of that they would have to compensate all the big polluting businesses for all the permits they bought but can no longer use. That would probably end up in a high court case that would make the plain packaging court case look like a walk in the park. The federal government could have to pay out something like $15 billion. Where does that money come from? Which taxes will they raise?

Thus I suggest to you, that once the ETS bills pass, no government will ever repeal them.

Just for the record, Thomson claims that “someone” stole his phone, his credit card and his drivers licence drove to Sydney, rang a brothel to organise a time, paid for sex using the credit card and then used the licence as proof of ID (for the credit card) and then forged his signiture. Not only that he did this twice.

Therefore i think it is plain to see by all except idiots that a crime [may] have been committed [that is worth investigating].

This is the ideal tax system for governments. Its so obscure from what people pay that any increases will be difficult to quantify in terms of what the people pay in advance of said increases occurring.

The only time I write about other posters is when they clearly revert to abuse instead of presenting evidence to support their positions. An example of this is post 165 that simply started by calling me an idiot.

Most of my posts are contributions to the debate, which I concede often different from the opinion’s of others here.

But that’s the beautiful thing about living in a democracy. People can have a range of views on various issues.

There is enough evidence to charge someone with embezzlement/fraud/misappropriation of funds, call it what you will. Thomson has calimed he did not spend the money but knew the money was spent as he authorised the payments he also stated he knew who spent the 15 odd K and they had paid the money back. However further investigation has shown hundreds of thousands of dollars have changed hands which is why the NSW police are investigating.

Now someone who was truly interested in debate would address the entire quote but not an Idiot as we find in post 155 as follows:

There is enough evidence to charge someone with embezzlement/fraud/misappropriation of funds, call it what you will.
Excuse me? The police can’t simply make up their own laws and say someone has committed a crime. They investigate, and then send their evidence to the DPP who determines if any laws have been broken.

We don’t live in a police state. We have laws and conventions to follow.

This is wonderful stuff and i have noticed this behaviour from many idiots in my time, you see how they take a statement out of context, then give it new meaning, then launch an attack on the poster.

The facts as we know them.

1, Someone spent large sums of money on sex using state money, AKA a CRIME.
2, Thomson knew of this expediture as he was the authorising office and in another display of stupidity it was his card.
3, Thomson claims it was not him and he knew who it was. So Thomson knew that someone had committed fraud but instead of alerting the police etc he covered up the crime, this makes him an accessory after the fact in the eyes of the law.
4, By Thomsons own admission this person stole his HSU credit card…..A CRIME
5, This person stole his phone…………..A CRIME
6, This person stole his licence…………….A CRIME
7, This person assumed another identity to solicit funds…A CRIME
8, This person forged a signiture to solicit funds…………..A CRIME
9, This person conducted this crime twice

So in the mind of a sane person Thomsons statement shows various crimes have been committed but in the mind of an Idiot…..well…..who knows what goes on in there.

The idiot then shows an alarming loss of reality by claiming to be the victim and even has the gaul to claim being called an Idiot debases the forum.

I beleive all Idiots suffer from the same problem, they see all disagreement as a personal affront and they will go to great lengths to find something to be affronted about.

They have been known to make stuff up just so they can feel affronted (as is the case here with taking things out of context) as the key words i used in my original statement was that the NSW cops are investigating this convinient fact was omitted by the idiot and replaced with

Excuse me? The police can’t simply make up their own laws and say someone has committed a crime. They investigate, and then send their evidence to the DPP who determines if any laws have been broken.

We don’t live in a police state. We have laws and conventions to follow.

I fail to see how any models can effectively predict and factor in the rorts, loopholes, opportunism and straight out fraud that has occurred almost everywhere else in the world where they have tried to implement a trading scheme. Its difficult to measured something that is an invisible trace gas.

And the ets will require traders, and it is very well known that these schemes are the next commodity market which the pirates of wall street need to have.

And the other countries attempts were done with governments who didn’t have disasters like the pink batts rort/electrocution scheme or the BER fiasco.

“….In 2009 Julia Gillard as Minister for Industrial Relations personally appointed Ian Cambridge as dual appointee to Fair Work Australia. I find this disturbing. While it could be argued that other Commissioners of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission were also given dual appointments at the same time they had not previously called for a Royal Commission into criminal conduct by Julia Gillard and her boyfriend Bruce Wilson…..”

It has been estimated that for us to meet our 2050 obligations we will need to “give” 650 billion dollars to unknown entities so we have the right to supply electricity etc. We may as well print it up and shred it.

The alternative is that the Labor/Green coalition suffer a rout at the next election and the Lib/nat coalition gain power in both houses and drive a stake through the heart of this evil policy.

Thomson sued the HSU for 190,000 dollars in a defamation case because the HSU withheld leave entitlements after it was found he had used his card illegally. He was accused of stealing from the unions, including spending thousands on prostitutes and withdrawing more than 100,000 dollars in cash advances.

Last year the union caved in and settled on the suit, paying Thomson tens of thousands of dollars of the 190,000 claim.

Don’t encourage him.
Remember, his task is to come here, change the subject, and shut down debate with mindless peripheral matters that move further and further from the original debate.
Way back in Post 45, I mentioned that sometimes we learn things from others who do comment.
Nothing to learn from this guy.
Don’t get sucked into playing his game.
Tony.

No politics until further notice. Principles to weigh up. Faith to keep. Sorry.

UPDATE

Afrer discussions, I now feel free to speak my mind. So I shall. In tomorrow’s column. I apologise for the mysteriousness, but I did not want to act in anger or before matters had been resolved. I had to be fair to my employer and to my readers, and I apologise if you think I’ve had the balance wrong over the past 24 hours.

Thank you to everyone who has rung, emailed or commented on this post, here and on radio.

Please note I have linked to a Fairfax and a Murdoch report on this issue in the interests of BALANCE.

The Treasury modelling does not factor in GDP shrinkage and in fact assumes economic expansion under such a tax; this was contradicted by earlier mo0delling commissioned by the then NSW ALP government:

Whilst my response was not published on the Drum, I was, as always, interested in the fake narrative of trying to put the word “Astroturf” against anything to do with the Tea Party and their like. It is worth stating (again) that the classic ‘astroturf’ in Australia and elsewhere is typified by the hosts and link groups excelling in this type of thing. By trying to link the convoy to it, they merely invite attention to their astroturf activities through Getup, its puppet Newsstand, Getup creator Avaaz and their own mentors (and ‘newsstand’ admitted advisor) Soros-linked Media Matters for America.

I did not say you were wrong in your comments @ 164. In fact I’m sure are correct in explaining so carefully how the parliamentary system works.

But you have also carefully explained to all the readers of this thread the ALP/Green Govt. strategy on this issue. Basically it is saying we know we will lose the next election but on the Carbon Tax / ETS issue we do not care because we will ensure the bill passed will make it very difficult and expensive for subsequent Govts. to repeal when the parliamentary process allows them to. Where I come from this is called absolute arrogance.

So Tony @ 188 I disagree with your point and say we can learn from these guys.We should all save comment 164 from Adam for future reference.

The fault in the plan is to assume the Govt. in place in 2015 ( if the issue has to wait that long to be resolved) will want to continue with the plan of reducing emissions by 5% by 2020. Alot can happen and policies change in the next 4 years.

Couldn’t agree more. Adam is very adept at skirting around any number of arguments in true political style, but his castles (not to mention their foundations) are made of sand, his assumptions being predicated on Treasury being honest and accurate. I’m sure a bucket load of disclaimers follow any assertions they may make when it comes to the CRT or fixed price ETS or whatever you want to call it this week. The real answer, if they were honest, would have a number of scenarios according to the possible permutations of the overall performance of the economy, but they clearly would rather obfuscate than illuminate, now wouldn’t they?

Meanwhile the rest of us have to survive the REAL cost of this impost, rather than the modelled cost which almost certainly bears little or no resemblance to reality. As your business goes under the government apologists will tell you, I’m sure, that it’s all just a figment of your imagination!

All this debate about repealing legislation – or not – misses a specific point. The legislation doesn’t HAVE to be repealed – just ignored by an incoming government.

In 1972 Whitlam effectively cancelled out National Service, brought the Nasho’s home, released conscientious objectors from prison, and waived pending trials for call-up evaders with out ANY legislation actually being passed.

The actual legislation legitimising these actions wasn’t passed until seven months later in June 1975. Even this legislation did not actually repeal the National Service Scheme Act itself.

That didn’t happen in any form until 1992 with the Keating government – and again, that legislation STILL did not repeal the National Service Laws – which continue to exist to this day.

Similar action could be taken with the Carbon Tax legislation, where its provisions are simply ignored by an incoming government.

Of course, that is not what will actually happen – only what COULD happen.

What WILL happen if the Coalition roll Labor next election is once the ballots have been declared and the Liberals hold their vote on “who” will be PM (usually just a formality), Abott will find himself rolled and Turnbull installed as Liberal parliamentary leader and PM.

The Liberals under Turnbull will be able to claim an “overwhelming mandate” to introduce “their” version of a “climate change policy” – which is why it is STILL part of their platform.

I repeat what I have written many, many times now: anybody who thinks anything is going to be solved or fixed simply by having an election – regardless of what kind of majority the Coalition end up with – is deluding themselves, for as long as the Liberals have a “climate change policy” at all.

it took three readings of this piece before i understood that nothing was “misleading” except for a Govt pollie (ex AWU guy) claiming it was!

30 Aug: ABC: Anti-carbon tax rally ‘misleading’
The organiser of an anti-carbon tax forum in Bathurst says many residents do not trust the Federal Government’s figures.
Gary Rush says about 130 people turned out last night to hear from the New South Wales Minerals Council, Federal Opposition, New South Wales Business Chamber and Australian Farm Institute.
The forum has been criticised for being one-sided and not detailing the compensation available to households and businesses.
However, Mr Rush says those who attended wanted to hear the argument against the tax because they do not trust the Government’s information…
A Government Senator, Matt Thistlethwaite, says the people he spoke to were disappointed the event only looked at one side.
He says he was denied the opportunity to speak about the Government’s plan.
“Compensation under the scheme, the tax cuts associated with the scheme, the increases in pensions and the assistance to business to reduce emissions were not explained to the people of Bathurst,” he said.
“They got a very one-sided, misleading argument based on some assertions which simply weren’t true.”http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-30/anti-carbon-tax-rally-misleading/2862234

“Adam Smith” doesn’t mention that the Reps can be dissolved by the GG at any time.

28. Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.

That could lead to an election by December. And with an obstructive Senate, the conditions to trigger a DD by May 2012.

A general election is of course not necessary for a change of government. It simply requires one or more of those in government to “stumble”, changing allegiance or triggering a by-election which is most-likely to result in somebody NOT from the Greens or ALP; or an independent to be elected to the seat being vacated.

Again, if the Senate is subsequently obstructive, then it could create conditions for a DD.

Looks like Bolt has been served by the unions. You just know The Australian is running scared because it has outsourced all its editorial sdrvices and have no idea what they print is fact and what is fiction.

I would say this is one of the cleverer moves I’ve seen the unions make in along time. They are directly engaging with the media sector. We are seeing the goverment go to war against the media, something only the Labor Party can do in this country.

We might have a watershed moment is Australian journalism whereby, the blowback on the media in a political scandal could be worse than the damage to the government. I’m guessing we’re not going to see any political advertising in The Australian for some time.

On an unrelated note, is it just me, or are the comments on this site getting nastier? There was a time when those with opposing points of view were treated with more respect. Now, it seems they only get insulted for offering an opinion. May I suggest to those who have trouble controlling their temper should take a break. Go out into the real world and reaffirm your life. It’s too easy to keyhole your existance in online forums.

30 Aug: ABC AM: Steel, coal and gas getting too much carbon tax compo
TONY EASTLEY: New research into the carbon tax has found that steel makers would make a “windfall gain” under the Federal Government’s carbon tax compensation package.
The Grattan Institute also says that even if there was no compensation, miners of black coal or LNG producers would be unlikely to shed jobs due to the carbon tax.
But the Government says the compensation is necessary to make sure that crucial industries can survive the transition to a clean economy…
STEPHEN DZIEDZIC: The Federal Government has always brushed off Opposition accusations that the tax will hurt industry and miners by pointing to the heavy compensation it’s offering.
But Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute says there’s flimsy justification for the billions of dollars it’s proposing to spend…
STEPHEN DZIEDZIC: Is there a possibility though in your eagerness to make sure that there are no losers in this carbon tax debate that you’ve essentially handed tax payers’ money to heavy industry?
MARK DREYFUS: Not at all. What we have here is an appropriate package that is designed to move the Australian economy to the clean energy opportunities that are there, creating new products, creating new markets, creating new jobs for Australians.http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3305232.htm

30 Aug: SMH: Tom Arup: Each steel job saved to cost $36,000
The institute also finds the government’s commitment of a large swathe of free permits, and a $300 million adjustment fund for steel under the carbon price, will cost it over $320,000 per worker from 2012 to 2020, or on average $36,000 a year.
The finding assumes a carbon price of $40 a tonne by 2020 – higher than Treasury’s estimate – and BlueScope following through with its decision to close the Port Kembla number six furnace in NSW…
Australian steel giants BlueScope and OneSteel were some of the strongest critics of the carbon tax before its design was released but have tempered comments since the inclusion of the $300 million fund on top of free permits…
The institute says taking into account recent commodity prices and exchange rates, ”the level of protection in the draft legislation is unjustified and costly”.
A spokesman for the Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, said the government made no apologies for ”supporting Australian jobs and competitiveness as our economy makes the transition to a clean energy future”.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/each-steel-job-saved-to-cost-36000-20110829-1jih8.html

THE real import of the alleged brothel creeping scandal surrounding Craig Thomson has been missed. And it is this: key factions and unions within the Labor movement are now openly indifferent to the fate of either Julia Gillard or the federal government. They simply don’t care any more.

Gillard has now lost all authority within the broader Labor movement. By their actions in the Thomson saga they have signalled a judgment that she cannot win the next election. Settling internal scores and power struggles is therefore now more important than whatever happens to a lameduck PM who can’t haul her primary voting numbers out of the pathetically fatal mid 20s.

The Mafia-style dirt-covered shovel — code for digging your own grave — dumped on Friday at 3.30am on the doorstop of Kathy Jackson, the union official who had the courage to refer Thomson’s activities to the police, may as well have been delivered to the Lodge.

Big call. But I do have a good deal of knowledge regarding Bolt’s claims. On Sunday November 11, 2007, just days before the November 24 election I interviewed Gillard, then deputy leader of the opposition, in my capacity as political editor for News Limited’s Sunday newspapers. The interview concerned the embezzlement of union funds — not disputed — and later the subject of a court conviction by a former boyfriend of Gillard, Bruce Wilson. I had researched the piece for months. It was the most heavily lawyered article I have ever been involved in writing. The story said that as a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her lover to defraud the AWU. But she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for.

Gillard, then in her early 30s, was a lawyer with Melbournebased Labor firm Slater & Gordon. At the time of the fraud she acted for the AWU. She met Wilson, then the West Australian AWU secretary, while representing the union in the Industrial Relations Commission. Wilson later moved to Melbourne to become Victorian secretary of the union.

What the lawyers would not allow to be reported was the fact that Gillard shared a home in Fitzroy bought by Wilson using the embezzled funds. There is or was no suggestion Gillard knew about the origin of the money. We now await the issue to which Bolt refers.

the Guardian has done an editorial with so many inaccuracies, it would be fun counting them all. we begin with an appeal to emotion on behalf of anonymous torres strait islanders!

28 Aug: UK Guardian: Editorial: Australia: a poisonous political climate
Climate change protests could be drowned out by the clamour against plans to curb pollution generated by big companies
Among the indigenous peoples of islands that few have heard of in the Torres Strait, off the north-eastern tip of Australia, there are fears that climate change may soon overwhelm them, with communities vanishing under rising seas. But these islands are 1,700 miles from Canberra, and their protests risk being drowned out by the prevailing clamour against Julia Gillard’s government’s plans to curb pollution generated by the nation’s big companies…
When parliament returned recently, there were 2,000 protesters outside, equipped with placards bearing slogans such as “ditch the witch”. The opposition leader, Tony Abbott, partly distanced himself from such language, but demanded Ms Gillard scrap her planned carbon tax and call an early election. And last week lorry drivers converged on Canberra to demand an instant poll.
This has long been a toxic issue in Australia. Ms Gillard’s once famously popular predecessor as Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, lost first that popularity and then his leadership partly because he failed to steer through the legislation he had promised to deal with what had earlier been called “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”. Ms Gillard, who led the plot to displace him and took on his job, was more sceptical. At the August 2010 election, she specifically promised voters: “no carbon tax”.
The issue had done for an opposition Liberal leader too. Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the conservative coalition in which the Liberals are the dominant force, ordered his troops to support the government’s plans to combat climate change. He was toppled, and replaced by a man – Tony Abbott – who no doubt on the basis of long and subtle scientific analysis dismisses the whole case for man-made climate change as “crap”…http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/28/australia-poisonous-political-climate

Adam – I’ve been doing financial analysis and modelling for for nigh on 20 years and I wasn’t impressed by the Treasury report at all. I cannot do a forensic on it because the spreadsheets were not provided (you can download the charts but not the calcs). However it is clearly a bridge from nowhere to nowhere.

The biggest problem is the ‘abatement sourced overseas’ (see graph on page 7). There is no analysis of what this is, only (according to section 5.2.1) that it comes from overseas. No detail whatsoever. I’d have thought some justification of pricing, availability, escalation etc was called for given that it comprises 78 out of the 80% reduction from 2000 levels by 2050 that the report claims.

I suspect the assumptions are decidedly dodgy, but they don’t give them in this case, so you have to interpret tealeaves. Regarding the ‘abatement sourced from overseas’: since the laws of supply and demand requires that increased usage attracts increased cost if they are in limited supply you expect a major pricing change with increased purchase. So where is the metaanalysis of price as other countries also try to source the same abatement? The question is key to the outcome. If I were to read this as a project financial analysis I’d say to the project promoters go away and do a better job. That is the polite version of what I would say.

Treasury unfortunately has lost a lot of credibility having been politicised. This document seems poorer as the result, but I suspect that is because if they were open, or priced carbon under real market dynamics, the numbers would be so awful that it would destroy the political basis that the report is supposed to be supporting. Not least that a ’80% reduction below 2000 levels by 2050′ is actually only a 2% real reduction supports my suspicion.

And of course the data shows CO2 climate sensitivity is low, therefore the economics of abating it are unjustifiable anyway.

30 Aug: Wyong Express Advocate: Carbon tax law ‘not fair’ says power company
DELTA Electricity is calling for an overhaul to part of the Federal Government’s carbon tax legislation.
The power generator, which operates Colongra, Munmorah and Vales Point power stations on the Central Coast, claims the carbon tax legislation is deeply flawed and unfair and particularly impacts consumers, taxpayers and black coal-fired generators in NSW.
Under the carbon tax compensation plan, 99 per cent of about $5.5 billion in compensation would be paid to Victorian and South Australian privately owned high emission generators.
Delta Electricity chief executive Greg Everett said the carbon tax compensation plan would distort the national electricity market by making the biggest carbon emitters more financially resilient and strip billions of dollars off the value of NSW’s generator assets.
“NSW residents get a double hit, the carbon tax plan will increase the cost of electricity and there is no compensation to offset slashed dividends to government which are used to fund services and infrastructure,” Mr Everett said…http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/carbon-tax-law-not-fair-says-power-company/

scaper – my point was that by not offering a link you made it appear that you wrote it!

More importantly, we can’t just copy whole articles and breach copyright, and if The Australian has actually retracted this, then possibly it should not be here either (so I snipped a lot). In general: We should always try to source-link quotes, and never copy whole articles. I appreciate your help. JN

On the Thomson thing. To get turfed out of parliament he has to be convicted of something criminal that carries a penalty of more than a year in prison. The police / DPP will decide that. Every hyperventilating nut-jobbie in the country screaming and wetting themselves about it wont change that. The proper, established procedures appear to be underway to decide if he has done anything criminal.

A lot of the opinion i have read on this is that actually he hasn’t, but now its incumbent on all to wait and see what the NSW DPP say about it.

And simply being charged doesn’t mean he’s guilty and has to stand aside from parliament. May be mid 2012 before it gets to court and then there are appeals to consider i’d think.

23 sitting days left, and it looks like the Carbon Price and MRRT will pass both houses by years end. NBN should get ticked off at the Telstra shareholders meeting next month so the roll-out will pick up speed. 185 bills passed this year, 22 in the last 2 week sitting. Pretty good for a paralyzed Govt huh??

Will be interesting to see what recycled froot-loopery and affrontedness dah Bolt comes out with tomorrow and how much he can further embarrass the right wing of the Ox body politic?

[Similar action could be taken with the Carbon Tax legislation, where its provisions are simply ignored by an incoming government.]

Not with the amount of coin that is tied up in the Carbon Price bills mate. If they don’t collect the money, they will have to pass legislation repealing the changes to the tax system, pension increases, ect.

Or they can keep those and cut the budget elsewhere to pay for these?? That would be a “brave” move in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.

I guess all that 2.5 year stalling tactic by fair work australua is helping the plans of the dear leader eh!

Well I have some news. The public can smell corruption a mile off. The price for the union movement and labor party fir another two years of government may well be their passing into permanent irrelevance.

You can dress a dog deposit up in a pretty bow, but people still aren’t going to buy it.

What WILL happen if the Coalition roll Labor next election is once the ballots have been declared and the Liberals hold their vote on “who” will be PM (usually just a formality), Abott will find himself rolled and Turnbull installed as Liberal parliamentary leader and PM.

The Chemical Fire and subsequent spill at Epping in February 1996 was covered in the News Ltd newspapers, featured in an episode of the television program Emergency and for some years there was a article on the VicNet website (removed by order of a subsequent Labor administration) and on various international websites.
There was an inquiry into the accident and subsequent mishandling of the aftermath by the EPA and NSW Health- an inquiry which has never been released. There is also a record of a private members statement by local MP Andrew Tink in April 1996.
My involvement was initially at the request of a local community organisation and Mr Pat Sheridan of Epping who was one of the most seriously exposed casualties.

Personally, I don’t like to think any job is low or dirty. Living in the bush does that to you.

Imagine, however, being a foot-soldier for GetUp! right now. Imagine having to spin the verbiage and co-ordinate responses and scrape together factoids to make the present Labor/Green government look okay. And just when you think you’ve got that last smear of lipstick on to your pig, something like the Thomson affair comes along.

I dunno. You shouldn’t look down on anyone else’s job, but…those GetUp! guys really do it tough.

The purpose of the Libs to attack Thomson is to show just how grubby the Labor party is, remember Gillard has defended Thomson to the point where she is prepared to die in a ditch for him she has been forced to do this so she can keep a hold of power all due to the pressure applied by the libs. Now what happens if the police lay charges of fraud against Thomson?

The whole point of this is to ultimately put pressure on the independents to drop their support for Labor and dont forget if he is charged with fraud the party in power would generally sack the guy way before he goes to trial, this wont happen with Gillard.

Will be interesting to see what recycled froot-loopery and affrontedness dah Bolt comes out with tomorrow and how much he can further embarrass the right wing of the Ox body politic?

I am more interested in hearing the latest excuse Gillard gives Thomson for keeping quiet or a more detailed explanation as to why Combet called someone a racist for daring to ask why we should hand over 650 billion dollars to unknown entities for nothing.

I would like to know who stole Thomsons credit card, phone and licence twice without Thomson knowing.

I would like to know why Thomson said nothing about this and simply paid the bill.

I would like to know who withrew over 100K from said credit card and what was it pissed away on.

I would like to know why i dont have the very same privilege when i comes to spending on my Defence travel card (diners), one guy bought a one way ticket to london with his about half an hour before boarding by the time he landed in london the police were there waiting to arrest him, but why i ask? Why cant i waste government money like Thomson [is alleged to have] on wine, women and song…….why not catamon?

Don’t encourage him. Remember, his task is to come here, change the subject, and shut down debate with mindless peripheral matters that move further and further from the original debate.

Not true at all. The people that are trying to shut down debate are the ones who say that someone is an “idiot”, simply because they dare to put forward an alternate view. I am encouraging debate by evaluating the evidence, whereas some here seem to think that if you call someone an idiot often enough, then you somehow win a debate.
Post 193:

The Treasury modelling does not factor in GDP shrinkage and in fact assumes economic expansion under such a tax; this was contradicted by earlier mo0delling commissioned by the then NSW ALP government:

This is an astonishingly statement. This year alone the federal government will raise something like $300 billion worth of revenue, yet the economy will produce something like $1300 billion worth of goods and services. The net effect of the ETS is to REDUCE taxes by about $4 billion in its first couple of years, yet you are seriously proposing that the economy is going to suddenly stop growing?

I thought this forum was based on people using rational arguments? Unbelievable.
Post 195:

But you have also carefully explained to all the readers of this thread the ALP/Green Govt. strategy on this issue.

There isn’t a coordinated Labor / Green strategy on this issue. There’s just an agreement on passing the Government’s policy.

Basically it is saying we know we will lose the next election but on the Carbon Tax / ETS issue we do not care because we will ensure the bill passed will make it very difficult and expensive for subsequent Govts.

I haven’t heard a single minister say that they know they are going to lose the next election. Maybe that is what they think privately, but they haven’t expressed it publicly. You’ll need to back up that assertion with some evidence.

to repeal when the parliamentary process allows them to. Where I come from this is called absolute arrogance.

Government’s make it hard for future Governments to repeal policies all the time. The sale of Telstra and the implementation of the GST are two good examples made by the previous government.

Post 196:

his assumptions being predicated on Treasury being honest and accurate. I’m sure a bucket load of disclaimers follow any assertions they may make when it comes to the CRT or fixed price ETS or whatever you want to call it this week. The real answer, if they were honest, would have a number of scenarios according to the possible permutations of the overall performance of the economy, but they clearly would rather obfuscate than illuminate, now wouldn’t they?

The Treasury modeled the Government’s policy with minor differences because they needed time to do the work.

You are essentially asserting that the Australian Treasury is corrupt, when it and the RBA are the premier economic modelling bureaucracies available to the government. I also note that you simply assert that the Treasury doesn’t know what it is doing because that is what you think. You haven’t actually provided any evidence beyond a silly circular argument.

Post 197:

All this debate about repealing legislation – or not – misses a specific point. The legislation doesn’t HAVE to be repealed – just ignored by an incoming government.

Absolutely and completely wrong! Governments MUST adhere to and implement the laws of the parliament! If they refuse to do so, all the Opposition would have to do is go to the federal court to FORCE the Government to adhere to Australian law.

It is very funny that you propose this as a serious option, when the last time a government tried to do this, it was Jack Lang, the Premier of New South Wales who was sacked by the NSW Governor for refusing to follow a court ruling designed to force the government to pay its debts.

Once again, someone in this forum proposes that the Government not abide by the laws duly passed by the democratic legislature! It seems that some here only like democracy part of the time.

…the Liberals hold their vote on “who” will be PM (usually just a formality), Abott will find himself rolled and Turnbull installed as Liberal parliamentary leader and PM.

I’m pretty sure the Liberal party only has an automatic ballot after election LOSES, not wins.
Post 200:

“Adam Smith” doesn’t mention that the Reps can be dissolved by the GG at any time.

On the advice of the Prime Minister. Dissolving the House only hasn’t happened since 1972, and is considered a stupid thing to do, because the subsequent half senate election turns into a great opportunity for voters to kick the Government, knowing that it won’t lose power.

Again, if the Senate is subsequently obstructive, then it could create conditions for a DD.

It would take at least a year for the D.D. trigger to be created.

Post 201:

Looks like Bolt has been served by the unions. You just know The Australian is running scared because it has outsourced all its editorial sdrvices and have no idea what they print is fact and what is fiction.

What on earth are you going on about “the unions”? Bolt was clearly told to shut the hell up by the News Ltd. legal department, because Bolt was going quite close to pulling a Glenn Milne, and publishing defamatory things about the PM.

I don’t think there is any need for the PM to sue Milne or News Ltd more broadly.

The Oz yesterday admitted that what they published is wrong, and that no one at the Oz bothered to verify the information before printing it. This ultimately means The Australian admits it has failed journalism 101

The PM has done us all a great public service by getting The Australian to admit how incompetent and agenda driven they are.

What, would you rather we had some kind of banana republic where a few people yelling enough unfounded abuse and rumor was enough to change a Govt?

I don’t understand why Senator Mary Jo Fisher doesn’t get a mention. I mean that’s a woman who has actually been charged for shoplifting and assault, but I haven’t heard anyone here bring that issue up.

Not true at all. The people that are trying to shut down debate are the ones who say that someone is an “idiot”, simply because they dare to put forward an alternate view. I am encouraging debate by evaluating the evidence, whereas some here seem to think that if you call someone an idiot often enough, then you somehow win a debate.

For the last time, it is one thing when people disagree with something i say however it is a completely different matter when someone cut and pastes a statement of mine with the sole purpose of changing its meaning and then construct and argument which in the end is in total agreement with what i said in the first place.

People who do such things are surely Idiots of the highest order, this has nothing to do with winning or losing it is simply pointing out the idiocy of some.

Well let me see…..shoplifting up to 100 dollars worth of goods versus 100K cash withdrawals as yet unaccounted for/up to 30K spent on hookers and fine wining and dining/over 100K under the table payments from unionists to MPs…….yeah you are right we should be paying more attention to the MJF thing.

Regrettably BH, I believe something like that is pretty-much exactly what is going to happen. Consider:

The Libs consist of three loose factions – the “Wets”, the “Centrists”, and the “Dries”. The Wets would all be happier in the Left of the Labor Party, the Centrists represent what most people think the Liberals are all about, and the Dries are the supposedly conservatives.

Since the early 90′s the Wets have been the major group, and can only be overcome by the occasional combined efforts of the Centrists and the Dries. This is how they managed to roll Turnbull in favour of Abott – by a SINGLE vote.

Since then the numbers from the Dries have been reduced, and the Wets increased – the new replacement senator being a case in point. Plus most of the seats the Libs picked up last election were by Wets.

I believe the ONLY reason they haven’t already rolled Abbott to date is because the Party is doing well in the polls. Otherwise I think he would have been rolled soon after the last election.

Also keep in mind that while the Libs are looking good on a two-party preferred basis, in the popularity stakes for preferred PM Abbott is following Gillard down, down down. And Turnbull consistently outpolls them both as preferred PM.

Above all, there HAS to be some logical reason why the Libs have not abandoned their “climate change policy”, which becomes an increasingly toxic millstone around their necks with each passing day, as the electorate wakes up the scam that is CAGW.

Almost EVERY point that has been scored against the Coalition in parliament these past six months can be laid to rest at the feet of this policy. Almost EVERY point scored in debate here and elsewhere by the cultists is due to the same reason.

It is being retained for a purpose, and it sure isn’t to win them any votes or help their supporters’ credibility.

It therefore stands to reason that the only logical rerason that it is being retained is so the Libs can claim a “mandate” to introduce some version of it after the next election. By dropping Abbott in favour of Turnbull – who favours an ETS over a carbon tax anyway, everything Abbott may promise in the election becomes irrelevant, and the issues being raised by our trolls simply disappear.

Whavtever gave you the ideas that politics had anything to do with sanity?

I don’t understand why Senator Mary Jo Fisher doesn’t get a mention. I mean that’s a woman who has actually been charged for shoplifting and assault, but I haven’t heard anyone here bring that issue up.

Probably because there’s a degree of compassion both sides have towards those suffering from mental illnesses. It’s different when there’s a suspicion of willful and recurring misappropriation of funds with, as yet, little in the way of explanation.

This is how it works, you have a credit card, it is yours, it is your responsibility for keeping it safe etc, if you spend money on it IT NEEDS TO BE WORK RELATED, all bills that are incurred on the credit card must be approved by someone. This is so that noone can commit fraud so for the last time……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Thomson has stated on the public record that someone STOLE his credit card A CRIME, stole his phone A CRIME, and his licence A CRIME.

We know that at least 100,000 dollars cash has been withdrawn using his credit card THIS IS THEFT ALSO KNOWN AS A CRIME. Thomson for some ungodly known reason is also the approver of his credit card so this fraud went unnoticed.

So what we do know is that a major crime has been committed, what we do know is that Thomson claims it was not him but someone else but he is not saying who it was. As Thomson knew about the fraud (remember he would have known because he would have got the bills) but rather than told police he just paid the bills and shut up then he is an accessory after the fact WHICH IS A CRIME.

Do i need to go any further? Just about every newspaper in the country has asked the same questions of Thomson but still he refuses to answer (Who stole all that money) the libs tried to get him to talk in parliament but Gillard rescued him. Will he talk to police if needed? we shall see.

I’d like to remind you of the history of one J Winston Howard, who throughout the 80′s had half of his party against him. Upon finally winning government, many many new MPs owed their jobs to JWH, who went on to become legend.
So much so that even in the shadows of the looming 2007 election, knowing they would lose, they refused to roll him, though many senior members encouraged him to step aside.

Only one party has demonstrated the capacity to roll a newly elected PM, it’s not the Libs.

I’d be willing to bet; say a token $50, to be donated to Jos blog that Abbott will NOT be rolled in the first term should he win government at the next election.

Absolutely and completely wrong! Governments MUST adhere to and implement the laws of the parliament! If they refuse to do so, all the Opposition would have to do is go to the federal court to FORCE the Government to adhere to Australian law.

Slither, slither, slither.

Who said anything about a government not ADHERING to the law? Strawman argument.

As to failing to implement a law, I’ve already quoted an example – National Service – that PROVES you wrong. Whitlam was not FORCED to implement the National Service Act, neither was Fraser, neither was Hawke, and yet the legislation continued to exist through all these governemnts for twenty years.

It is very funny that you propose this as a serious option, when the last time a government tried to do this, it was Jack Lang, the Premier of New South Wales who was sacked by the NSW Governor for refusing to follow a court ruling designed to force the government to pay its debts.

Is this the same Adam Smith who has argued ad nauseum here that the Governors and GG are simply “figureheads” who HAVE to do what they’re told by their Premiers and the PM?

Slither, slither, slither.

If Abbott as PM announced that henceforth there would be no requirement for “big polluders” to buy carbon offsets there would be stuff-all anybody could do about it. I doubt very much that the “dirdy polluders” would object, and I’m pretty sure nobody would protest at the subsequent reductions in their power bills.

Simply winding back the NBN (also Turnbull policy) would cover the shortfall in tax collections due to the raising of the tax threshhold – at least for three years – the life of a parliament – and as far into the future as OZ politicians think and plan these days.

Not that it matters. I’ve already stated none of this will happen. Turnbull will roll Abbott, either immediately before an election (if the Libs start to go south in the polls), or immediately afterwards if not.

To those who are commenting on the Bolt situation, please stop speculating.

# Bolt HIMSELF stopped posting articles on his blog.
# He did so as he was dismayed at his employers stance on the issue of free speech.
# Bolt was ready to quit News Ltd because of this
# It seems a compromise has been reached and Bolts blog will continue. More may be revealed in due course.
# The person in trouble over this issue is not Bolt but Milne
# Milne is in trouble over repeating assertions about Gillard even though News bosses had promised her they would stop their assertions some years ago

Delving into union shennanigans is fraught with danger as loyalties shift, information given (to journos) are denied etc. One can get very hurt when stepping between warring factions of unions as Milne is finding out first hand.

The Oz yesterday admitted that what they published is wrong, and that no one at the Oz bothered to verify the information before printing it. This ultimately means The Australian admits it has failed journalism 101

The PM has done us all a great public service by getting The Australian to admit how incompetent and agenda driven they are.

I’d be willing to bet; say a token $50, to be donated to Jos blog that Abbott will NOT be rolled in the first term should he win government at the next election.

Are you willing to take the bet?

I’m willing take on an amended form of the bet.

That Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull BEFORE the next election, as per the last sentence of my post @ 236, OR Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull immediately after the election – say withing six months just to put a timeframe on it.

“That Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull BEFORE the next election, as per the last sentence of my post @ 236, OR Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull immediately after the election – say withing six months just to put a timeframe on it.”

How about that Abbott will get rolled within 6 months of the Carbon Price and MRRT legislation passing?? Once those go through, what is the reason for him being there? He will have pretty much failed on all the substantive reasons he was pin the position??

So far you’ve done a stellar job in defending your views.
However, evoking the Senator Fisher situation @223 has done a diservice to your argument and to your credibility.

Walking out of a shop without paying for goods is a far cry from what is potentially a systematic defrauding of members funds by union bosses.
There are many psychological studies into why people (adult women especially) shoplift.
Fisher has been charged and will appear in court. Should she be found guilty, and the POTENTIAL sentence is 12 months or more, she will be removed from parliament. She has not denied taking goods from the store.

Contrast that to the Thomson situation where we know many thousands of dollars of members fees has been used for purposes other than for the benefit of members, we know past instances of similar situations has led to the conviction of union bosses (one in particular very close to Gillard) and your at the realm of possible systematic corruption and fraud by the very people who populate the Labor party ranks.

There are no suggestions that many liberals are shoplifters are there?

That’s why (in a very concise blog post way) the two situations are like chalk and cheese. One is inconcequential to Australians in general, the other has serious repurcussions for body politic.

If you don’t recognise this, you have no credibility in commenting about politics.

By all means continue your well argued positions as you have been, but drop the silly comparison of Fisher and Thomson.

That Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull BEFORE the next election, as per the last sentence of my post @ 236, OR Abbott will get rolled by Turnbull immediately after the election – say withing six months just to put a timeframe on it.

I’ll take that bet. Settled then, $50 donated to this blog, bet based on the above quote.

The debating here is pretty weak today. You’ve got people that simply revert to abuse right from the start of their posts. You’ve then got people saying shoplifting isn’t a serious crime, and then you’ve got people saying that Governments shouldn’t worry about following laws duly passed by the parliament.

(Some of your replies are juvenile.You should get on with the counterpoints and stop the whining about “abuse”.) CTS

How about that Abbott will get rolled within 6 months of the Carbon Price and MRRT legislation passing?? Once those go through, what is the reason for him being there? He will have pretty much failed on all the substantive reasons he was pin the position??

You will get no argument from me on that possibility. Which i precisely WHY I wrote the following way back at 226:

I believe the ONLY reason they haven’t already rolled Abbott to date is because the Party is doing well in the polls. Otherwise I think he would have been rolled soon after the last election.

And this at 236:

Not that it matters. I’ve already stated none of this will happen. Turnbull will roll Abbott, either immediately before an election (if the Libs start to go south in the polls), or immediately afterwards if not.

If you are going to come in half way through a discussion at least have the good manners to get up to speed with what has already been stated.

What I said: “The Treasury modelling does not factor in GDP shrinkage and in fact assumes economic expansion under such a tax; this was contradicted by earlier mo0delling commissioned by the then NSW ALP government”

Smith’s reply: “This is an astonishingly statement. This year alone the federal government will raise something like $300 billion worth of revenue, yet the economy will produce something like $1300 billion worth of goods and services. The net effect of the ETS is to REDUCE taxes by about $4 billion in its first couple of years, yet you are seriously proposing that the economy is going to suddenly stop growing?”

I quoted from a Frontier Economics modelling result which had been commissioned in 2009 by the NSW ALP government to see what effect Rudd’s porposed ETS would have; this modelling showed a shrinkage in GDP of $2 Trillion by 2050; did you even read the link? Obviously not. And the reality is worse than than the $2 Trillion because the modelling was based on a 5% ETS generated reduction in CO2 emissions referable to 2000 population. 2 things will greatly magnify this; the first is the increase in population which will increase the per capita effect; the 2nd is the fact that the rate of emission reduction will, if the greens remain in control rapidly increase from 5%.

You say the “net effect of the ETS is to REDUCE taxes by about $4 billion in its first couple of years”.

That is unmitigated drivel; an ETS/carbon tax is a direct impost on the means of production, the productive capacity of the economy; it has no measureable or tangible benefit; in fact it negatively impacts on the economy in excess of its primary impost because it sucks in investment from productive sectors and puts them in non-productive sectors like bureaucracies and green energy which has a multiplier effect on the initial funds removal from the economy.

I quoted from a Frontier Economics modelling result which had been commissioned in 2009 by the NSW ALP government to see what effect Rudd’s porposed ETS would have; this modelling showed a shrinkage in GDP of $2 Trillion by 2050; did you even read the link?

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that GDP growth that would be slightly lower than otherwise in ONE state is enough to argue that there would be a national reduction in GDP? How many states does Australia have?

The evidence you are citing doesn’t support your initial proposition of “GDP shrinkage”, which to make any sense means of the entire country. And also you are using “shrinkage” to imply that GDP will be lower than it is now, when really growth will be a fraction of a percent lower than it otherwise would’ve been.

Hold on. . .
Didnt the Coalition vote Turnbull because of his extremely low public approval rating? Didnt the Coalition put Abbott in place as their leader and within months the Liberal approval rating rocketed upwards?

To suggest Turnbull will oust Abbott is crazy!
The Coalition will be signing their own death warrant if they put Turnbull back in place as leader.
Unless Turnbulls Rockefeller cronies have anything to say about it.

Oh, and on that note. . . the Rockefellers stand to make squillions with the introductions of carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes. Turnbull is 100% in favour for the introduction of such things.
Maybe he should jump ship to Labor and oust Gillard.

I would normally agree with most of your comments but disagree where Abbott is concerned. You would recall that Turnbull showed abysmal political skills with the Godwin Grech matter. He jumped straight into the trap that was set for him. Even before that, both his poll ratings and the party’s were in the crapper.

Whatever one thinks about Abbott, his personal ratings seem to be on an upward trajectory (unlike global temperature) along with the coalition being in a very strong position. Turnbull’s acquiescence in Rudd’s ETS saw Lib/Nat faxes and email boxes jammed with angry missives on their treachery. That’s why Turnbull was rolled or have some forgotten? Yes, it was only by one vote, but look at the polls now.

So? Although he’s actually a rent seeking media tart, he seeks to be a person of influence and has a public platform to do it from. The cash for comments episode was a particularly disgusting one where he used sold his “credibility” for coin, tried to convince his “public” that what he was saying were actually his opinions, when his “opinions” were bought and paid for. What i find saddest is that there are people out there who actually believe Jones and some of his 2GB / 2UE moron mates, and get stirred up by their ignorant rantings.

oh, and MV @ 252:

“If you are going to come in half way through a discussion at least have the good manners to get up to speed with what has already been stated.”

I’ve never really been know for good manners, and where do you get off being so uptight bout manners? This is the inter-tubes dude. Sweet bouncy freedom of barely OT discussion and flow of ideas maybe? If not, sit, spin as you are happy. No prob. All cool.

You are the idiot! You have read nothing about the ETS. There is a big tax reform component. that is, it is not all take, just like the GST wasn’t all take (nearly all take if you weren’t earning high income tho!

I suggest doing some reading. Your local library will have recent newspapers like the AFR plus various journals.

once again, i fail to see the relevance of alan jones versus the missing 100000+ from union funds of which some ended up in a brothel on the watch of a current mp. I also fail to see the relevance of alan jones to the obvious stalling and attempted coverup and subsequent alleged standover tactics.

oops i’ve used words with more than one syllable. am now waiting for the inevitable sound byte grab out of context.

Maxine, no, you have not understood the point about any ETS/carbon tax, which is they don’t just directly impost but are designed to suppress the productive heart of the economy, which is cheap energy. There are NO offsets for that; do read my post at 253 again and try a little harder to understand.

Thank you confirming that I have won all the debates I have participated in today.

You wouldn’t need to revert to abuse if you were able to counter any of my arguments.

(I snipped it out in his comment.But since you quoted the name calling here.It stays.) CTS

(You should stop crowing that you won debates.BASELESS name calling are not acceptable.But when given good reason for it in the comments.They usually stay.But it is better to avoid using them anyway.) CTS

O/T – MV – where you the reporter that was involved in the downfall of Brian Burke in WA – the journalist was using the same name (Memoryvault)!

I was ONE of the people involved in exposing the Burke affair. I’m the one who termed the phrase “little gnome from the west”, which led to me moving state when it became impossible to leave home without being tailed by an unmarked car full of D’s.

I’m the one who from the comparative safety of NSW (for a while) wrote some of the first articles about WA Inc.

I, for one, have a faint admiration for GetUp!. Imagine a case like the Thomson affair, where lurid meets blatant meets thuggish meets trashy in a way that just can’t be spun, so constant and tedious diversion is the only strategy.

Do the poor slogging infantry of GetUp! ever raise their heads from their keyboards and ask themselves or one another:

Here’s what the highly credentialed climate scientist, Roy Spencer, says about the evidence for AGW on his blog today.

On September 14, Al Gore will host a “global” event called 24 Hours of Reality, which is part of his Climate Reality Project. As the website states:

“24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.”

From what I have been hearing, Mr. Gore will be emphasizing record weather events as proof of anthropogenic global warming. What most people don’t realize is that you can have a 100 year weather record event every year, if they are in different places.

Besides, as a meteorologist I must question the whole idea of 100-year event. Since even the longest weather station datasets only go back about 100 years, it is questionable whether we can even say what constitutes a 100-year event.

I especially dislike Gore’s and others’ use of the pejorative “denier”. Even some climate scientists who should know better have started using the term.

What exactly does Mr. Gore think we “deny”? Do we deny climate? No, we were studying climate since before he could spell the word.

Do we deny global warming? No, we believe it has indeed warmed in the last few hundred years, just like it did before the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD:

So what do we deny, if anything? Well, what *I* deny is that we can say with any level of certainty how much of our recent warmth is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability.

No one pays me to say this. It’s the most obvious scientific conclusion based upon the evidence. When the IPCC talks about the high “probability” that warming in the last 50 years is mostly manmade, they are talking about their level of faith. Statistical probabilities do not apply to one-of-a-kind, theoretically-expected events.

I could have done better in my career if I played along with the IPCC global warming talking points, which would have led to more funded contracts and more publications.

It is much easier to get published if you include phrases like, “…this suggests anthropogenic global warming could be worse than previously thought” in your study.

In contrast, Mr. Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars by preaching his message of a “climate crisis”.

I would say that it is Mr. Gore who is the “climate denier”, since he denies the role of nature in climate variability. He instead chooses to use theory as his “reality”.

Adam @ various
Just read your riveting Treasury website you kindly linked earlier. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Of note was the use of multiple computer models, cobbled together to spew out their findings, with little notes at the bottom in some of the sections stating “assumptions have been made” regarding data beyond 2015 or 2020, without any detail as to how these “assumptions” were arrived at. How unusual- never seen that before. More interesting was the Disclaimer section, which has no information able to be linked to, merely a blank detailess page with the heading “Disclaimer”, clearly the detail for this section is a “for your eyes only”, government stooge only section. Of course they wouldn’t really want us to know what they won’t vouch for, now would they? Of course, by the time this has all come to pass and they have made a complete ass-backwards cock up of the whole economy, they will be off and long gone on the superannuation gravy train and we will be left carrying the can. As far as honesty is concerned, I wouldn’t say Treasury is dishonest, just that they are sometimes “economical’ with the truth when their political masters are breathing down their necks. If your livelihood depended on it, wouldn’t you be?

Gee, he has been taking lessons from Michelle Grattan! What a horrible memories that lying little turd stirred by appearing on that once-great program, the 7.30 Report.

I do see tho they no longer have those stupid moving red&blue lights and that leigh no longer has to stand there reading the headlines like a fishwife selling her wares. Stupid, consultant-type crap. Now, if that shadow of a program could do some real journalism. . .

This is a skeptic site. We’re all here because we don’t trust the IPCC, CRU, anyone or anything associated with them or global warming. They cry alarm, alarm, alarm! But when asked for the evidence they have none. Instead of debate they resort to name calling and character assassination. They are a fraud.

Then we have you playing innocent thoughtful helper. Nobody buys that either.

Just read your riveting Treasury website you kindly linked earlier. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Of note was the use of multiple computer models, cobbled together to spew out their findings, with little notes at the bottom in some of the sections stating

Oh, OK so you’re in the “The treasury is wrong because the treasury is wrong” circular reasoning crowd.

Thank you, that saves me a lot of time.

[so you think this is debate? Is this an argument? Or are you just avoiding? Some would use the word slithering.] ED

Maxine @ 294
“Deny, Deny, Deny”
” I..did not.. have sexyall relashuns with that woman…..”
Sound familiar?? Of course, Bill was just the victim of a stitch up, wasn’t he. Nasty republicans make up sh*t like that, now don’t they?
Honestly, what planet do you people live on?

If by “hard evidence” you mean that we have pictures of Thomson with his pants down while “in the act” Err, no! But that is not the issue. His explanation makes no logical sense- it’s “the dog ate my homework” defense. We are supposed to buy that are we? Fair dinkum. Wasn’t born yesterday and didn’t come down in the last shower either.

Oh, OK so you’re in the “The treasury is wrong because the treasury is wrong” circular reasoning crowd.

Thank you, that saves me a lot of time.

You’re welcome. I think I was pretty clear there as to why I don’t readily accept what has been modelled, even if you avoid mentioning that part of my post. You’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical, but I believe that even diligent scientists and economists can’t avoid the pitfalls of contact with the political contagion. Once in contact, 100% infection rate, a very virulent strain and universally fatal.

Why, I have no evidence that you are a GetUp! footslogger. I know nothing about you.

I certainly have made comments about GetUp! and its poor slogging infantry…Perhaps those comments have made you tetchy?

On the other hand, I’m in complete agreement with you as to the toxicity of groupthink. I would never enter an internet forum as an individual but representing a group, nor would I comment according to predetermined spin, policy and strategy set by any group. That would not exactly be contemptible, but it would be a bit sad.

On the other hand, I’m in complete agreement with you as to the toxicity of groupthink. I would never enter an internet forum as an individual but representing a group, nor would I comment according to predetermined spin, policy and strategy set by any group. That would not exactly be contemptible, but it would be a bit sad.

If i had a dollar for every time i have seen that sentiment expressed in defense of and echo chamber like blog i think i would have retired last year! Truly classic.

” I would never enter an internet forum as an individual but representing a group, nor would I comment according to predetermined spin, policy and strategy set by any group. That would not exactly be contemptible, but it would be a bit sad.”

You mean you don’t believe that Thomson has an identical twin with an identical phone with an identical number and an identical Driver’s Licence which was personally presented as ID to the brothel?

If anyone other than the cardholder uses the card, it is a breach by the cardholder of their Terms & Conditions which clearly states that you must keep the card physically secure at all times, you must sign the card, and you must never tell the PIN to anyone. In order to allow additional parties to have access to the account you need to apply (in writing) for each additional cardholder, and they get a different card and a different PIN. Each new card is signed by the cardholder and no one else. This is all well established banking security practice.

If anyone presents the card to a merchant, they are making the representation that they are the person who is named on that card, and the merchant is under agreement to only serve the person who is named on that card. If this mystery person forges a signature then it is not only clear misrepresentation, but also fraud. No question about it. If the merchant knows about it and continues with the transaction then the merchant is also implicated in the fraud.

Lost and stolen cards must be reported, once again it is part of the Terms and Conditions.

Troll numbers overwhelming. Will take break from joannenova.com.au until the BM on both sides has been wrangled. There are plenty of alternative sites to go and flame trollers. Reading right-wing nut jobs lay into left-wing nut jobs, followed by the infinite reciprocation dance is F’ing boring.

“You people” grow up!

- Yes, that’s really offensive and if you said it to my face you’d be eating your teeth.

The ABC should not have a website. Their charter does not extend to publishing… There is no need for them to be using Internet. There is no limited resource excuse like the air waves where the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource so that government allotted a portion to public access under a charter….. This bureaucratic abuse allows one side of politics, namely Labor and the Socialists, to have unlimited funding compared to private enterprise yet they only represent the smallest portion of society yet use the tax funds of all Australians no matter their political affiliations. It’s not right…. When Abbott wins power, it should be his very first job, disbanding the ABC and defunding SBS and the arts, film and sport. Chuck the socialists out and deny them our money.

“[...]a forum for the science of any issue that has not been explained well, and for the application of logic, reason and the scientific method to topics that ought to be scientific, but clearly aren’t[...]“

That doesn’t sound like it’s intended to be a forum for ‘people who all have the same opinion about AGW’. The scientific method is the process of postulating falsifiable hypotheses. The act of questioning what has previously been presented or accepted is the crux of scientific progress. I sure hope you don’t mind being questioned!

Catamon…. The Convoy of No Confidence worked…. you’re talking about it. So it worked.

It got National coverage and was spoken about at length in Parliament question time…

I know it burns your soul….. But this grass roots movement is not going away…. Look at the Polls Catamon. Your Labor party is dying. It’s rotten, corrupt and scum like Craig Thompson are the norm, not the exception.

…. If you are part of the Bureaucracy…. Don’t expect to have a job beyond a couple of years.

I actually think that the Convoy of No was a pretty good idea for a protest, its just that the cause was silly. It sucked in a load of people who seemed convinced that they could and should get a change in Govt NOW. It turned out that they were just background fodder for the media to report on however they liked, and to be live audience for various self interested media tarts (Jones, Abbott et al) to perform in front of for the cameras.

You want a grassroots campaign, have a look at the pre-2007 anti-WorkChoices rallies. That was a campaign. The goals were known and participants informed and focused. They were also achievable. It was known that with the LNP having a majority on both houses the only way the laws would be changed was to change the Govt at the next election. In the meantime, Unions and their members had to respect the then law of the land, work within the lawful due process and procedures, and they did. Howard lost his seat and Government, and the law was changed to something more reasonable.

Yup the convoy got national coverage, but mostly for the low turnout, and the ridiculous antics of Alan Jones. Disappointing for the true believers which is sad, but that’s life. Having Jones involved, well, there is the old saying about lying down, dogs and fleas huh?

Burns my soul? Nah, pretty cool with how things are shaping up, but thanks for you concern. Most of the pollies i know (on both sides of the fence) are actually people who are pretty committed to public service. Yep there are some silly economically illiterate ideologues in there but dont worry, most are already identified, confined to and impotent on the Coalition front bench under their leader the Shuddering Brain-lock.

Job loss!! Lawks!! Don’t lose any sleep on my account mate, i have a pretty good Union negotiated EBA with decent redundancy provisions (none of the individual contract 8 weeks bye bye crap hangover from the bad old days), a lot of which i actually wrote so i’m one of the lucky ones who is in reasonably secure employment.

The ABC should not have a website. Their charter does not extend to publishing… There is no need for them to be using Internet

A bit severe isn’t it ? While I agree with the thrust of your comment, the Internet is merely an adjunct to their existence. Everyone’s got internet. All corporations have to have a website. Where woukd we get all these iPlayer versions of their programmes from ? As to thrir continued existence ‘though, you do have a point..

And I have no link with GetUp. I used to get their emails asking for petitions of theirs to be signed but their crap about the Gunns paper mill got up my nose. I told them they obviously weren’t going to stop using paper so they felt paper mills should all be in third world countries not regulated in a first world one and that I wanted nothing to do with such blatant hypocrisy!

Yeah, either the ABC gets reformed and becomes again the powerhouse of real, incisive journalism or it is wound up and stops being a drain on the public purse. I would like it to have a chance but the current management utterly suck!

Maybe. But what if that precipitation remains locked up on land as ice? Look at the record snowfall throughout the Western United States this past winter. That’s how ice ages begin. If that sort of snowfall persists, sea levels will continue falling and won’t rise again until the end of the next ice age.

Precipitation in one season does not mean the start of an iceage. With high temperature records being set nearly every year none of the precipitation will remain until next winter.

The dig wasn’t meant for you. my bad. I thought you were referring to maxine re-entering.

May be my bad Madjak, my original post was in reference to maxine’s entry. My second post referred to one poster that over time has posted under several pseudonyms, been dropped from the site under those pseudonyms for rudeness, only to reappear under a new name but only ever offers further insults or links to Bolt.

It was never aimed at either you or any of the others here that engage those that come to disrupt and divert.

Waffle @ 310
Apparently I am being so offensive with my “you people” remark that I deserve to be rendered edentulous!
Amazing. Firstly the comment was not directed at you, even peripherally, nor to Brookesy, or MattB. They are welcome to comment here as they are here for the long haul, and while I disagree with much they say, I appreciate their input and would defend their right to say whatever they like within reason and decorum. The “you people” refers only to Adam, Maxine, Ben, J Dragone, etc who all descended simultaneously in the wee hours on the convoy thread, but who pretend not to know each other, but usually respond in pairs, supporting one another’s opinion. Their only purpose is to disrupt the thread, and apply their spin doctoring to sway the debate to their view, while ignoring valid criticism such as that directed at Gillard re. Thomson and his [alleged] misappropriation of 100,000 in Union funds and the subsequent cover up.A small correction to your post Winston. Mod Oggi

Maxine
So, in your world, government members of parliament are no longer held to account for their actions, or the use of their union credit cards given for purely business purposes? Interesting. So, anyway, when is the member for Dobell appearing in Underbelly Razor then? I’ll look forward to seeing him in the role of celebrity guest “John”.

Maxine @344
You talk of
“Astroturfing …. the one involving artificial truth, artificial grass roots events/stunts.”
Then you link to an article that is based on an exagerated and completely false construct.
It pretends there is some inconsistency between questioning AGW and accepting peer reviewed science.
It stylises this supposed inconsistency by likening it to the extreme distortion that occurs at an event horizon.
What utter Nonsense.
There’s that old 97% again. That’s the only distortion of reality here. That 97% of , what was it, only about 75 ! or so climate scientists . That is scarcely representative of the entirety of peer reviewed science relevant to AGW.
Invoking the ‘event horizon’ is so ridiculously out of perspective, that it demonstrates nothing other than an exagerated tendency to hyperbole, while taking the audience for complete nulls.

Oh look , it’s from UNi of NSW, the home of Deltoid and Pitdown Man, among others. Now there’s a surprise.

Joe V-glad you liked my link. Oh, and nice shooting of the messenger there! I guess for you science is whatever Bolt says it is?

Winston-in my world I like to go by evidence.

Cracar No you don’t know how a corporate card is used.

Damian-no she was able to get the national shit sheet to retract and apologise for an error-riddled personal attack withdrawn. I now hope she will pull the $100K a week APS advertising from the national shit sheet and use the money to advertise the govt’s achievements.

If you can show me a link to a bank website demonstrating that corporate cards operate under different terms and conditions to regular individual credit cards, then I will take you seriously. You might want to start with the “Electronic Funds Transfer Code of Conduct” as issued by ASIC and just highlight the bit where corporate cards are treated as a special case.

Oh wait, it just occurred to me that you could be arguing that because you have seen people break the law, that makes it OK for anyone to do it. Is that indeed the gist of your argument?

I luv your work mate but the latest research shows we all have a small % of Neanderthal in us. That old story about how we humans killed them off is now wrong turns out we both liked sex and we did not care who with.

Despite this the point of your post is duly noted and clearly understood.

Yep the protruding fore head would really do it for me as well. Actually the whole subject is rather interesting apparently we were all the same once and then when the ice age came we got split up, Neanderthals were up north in the cold hence they were short and stocky with big noses and really hairy (another turn on for early man i assume), whereas the others were down south a bit where it was warmer less hair more slender and athletic. So after 100,000 years we had two distinct forms. When the ice melted we got back together and had a good time and modern man was the result……or something like that anyway.

What amazes me most is that with each and every paper you lot debunk you remove one more scientist from you beloved consensus but yet after all these years of debunking the consensus apparently is larger than ever.

Mark D in 363,

Its crap…….crap i tells ya

Mark in 364,

I dont cae what anyone says there is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

I have a pet theory that trolls, ogres and giants (as in fairy tales) were the last living Neanderthals. They probably lived into relatively modern times. They would have made good soldiers (which would eventually make survival a problem).

When this theory takes off in science remember you saw it first here (by me).

“The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer — one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power…..”

I believe that the Greens want equal exposure in the (commercial) media given to alternative points of view. By law. Would this leave the ABC still free to be used as a propaganda tool? This is from their charter:

“Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every
facet of every argument is presented”.

One of Charles Martel’s comrades-in-arms at Poitiers was a warrior of the North known as Ogier le Danois, later Holger Danske, or Holger the Dane. Although Holger was a historical figure, little is known of him, and most of the written material about him is drawn from legend.

As you are reading Ogier and Holger think Ogre. I believe the Ogres of folk tales and such was just another word for warrior or Viking. Odd to me when I first read the story of Holger Danske I immediately saw the similarity but no one else that I have read seems to have made the connection. If you look at the statue of Holger you see a massive brutish hairy man that sure could be an ogre to me. Better to be a friend (or relative) to him than not!

Language and semantics is such a fun thing to me. I have a relative in Sweden that used to send me Swede texts to try to read. Often I could understand what he sent me but when I explained how I related Swede words to English words he’d argue with me fiercely that I was wrong. It didn’t matter, to him, that I used the wrong words to get the right message translation….

That whole analysis assumes that there will not be a L/NP senate majority as an outcome of the next election. I have checked the sitting senators and their term expiry dates and there is enough ALP, IND and AG sitting senators for their to be a complete senate majority for the L/NP coalition as an outcome of the next election. Do not think that the back-lash against the ALP will not also be felt by the Greens.

If you remove the word ‘farmer’ from the piece it leaves you with an observation of the way media in Australia portrays the idea of AGW without having to ‘blame’ any particular group. Whether you or I agree with that observation is neither here nor there, the farmer comment is poor form.

It all fits together now.
It continues to grow, that list of Common Purpose Orwellian doublespeak, with the BBCs re-engineering of the language, by declaring ‘Balance’ to mean bias.

Hijacking every agreeable word that people either accept or have been taught are implicitly good , and turn them to their own evil purpose.
Powerful, mind bending stuff.

And this from a mass media organisation.

And they talk about the Murdoch empire being evil. Criminal perhaps, but be thankful there is some antidote to the BBC. & you can quickly see how the establishment would want to vilify something so powerful if it cann’t control it.

The Regulator of Julia’s regulatory mechanism for maintaining an optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to be a mad genius [I hope they are not thinking about getting atmospheric CO2 down to zero].

Which also means that Julia’s scientific advisors are a mob of lunatics.

If you remove the word ‘farmer’ from the piece it leaves you with an observation of the way media in Australia portrays the idea of AGW without having to ‘blame’ any particular group. Whether you or I agree with that observation is neither here nor there, the farmer comment is poor form.

Don’t try to buffalo me with “poor form”. I read the thing, remember? So let’s talk substance. Absent the word “farmer” it remains a vacuous attempt to rationalize the miserable standards of journalism in Australia. It’s a whitewash job from start to finish.

Please don’t feel alone. We have the same problem here in the U.S. But the people are waking up, Tristan, both here and there.

In your shoes I’d settle down and try to get a good firm grip on reality.